1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
|
<!DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" />
<title>Friends in Council (First Series)</title>
</head>
<body>
<h2>
<a href="#startoftext">Friends in Council (First Series), by Sir Arthur Helps</a>
</h2>
<pre>
The Project Gutenberg EBook of Friends in Council (First Series)
by Sir Arthur Helps
Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing
this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook.
This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project
Gutenberg file. Please do not remove it. Do not change or edit the
header without written permission.
Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the
eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file. Included is
important information about your specific rights and restrictions in
how the file may be used. You can also find out about how to make a
donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved.
**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****
Title: Friends in Council (First Series)
Author: Sir Arthur Helps
Release Date: February, 2005 [EBook #7438]
[This file was first posted on April 30, 2003]
Edition: 10
Language: English
Character set encoding: US-ASCII
</pre>
<p><a name="startoftext"></a></p>
<p>This etext was produced by Les Bowler, St. Ives, Dorset.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines3"><br /><br /><br /></div>
<h1>FRIENDS IN COUNCIL (First Series)<br />BY SIR ARTHUR HELPS.</h1>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines3"><br /><br /><br /></div>
<h2>INTRODUCTION BY HENRY MORLEY.</h2>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<p>Arthur Helps was born at Streatham on the 10th of July, 1813.
He went at the age of sixteen to Eton, thence to Trinity College, Cambridge.
Having graduated B.A. in 1835, he became private secretary to the Hon.
T. Spring Rice, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Melbourne’s
Cabinet, formed in April, 1835. This was his position at the beginning
of the present reign in June, 1837.</p>
<p>In 1839 - in which year he graduated M.A. - Arthur Helps was transferred
to the service of Lord Morpeth, who was Irish Secretary in the same
ministry. Lord Melbourne’s Ministry was succeeded by that
of Sir Robert Peel in September, 1841, and Helps then was appointed
a Commissioner of French, Danish, and Spanish Claims. In 1841
he published “Essays Written in the Intervals of Business.”
Their quiet thoughtfulness was in accord with the spirit that had given
value to his services as private secretary to two ministers of State.
In 1844 that little book was followed by another on “The Claims
of Labour,” dealing with the relations of employers to employed.
There was the same scholarly simplicity and grace of style, the same
interest in things worth serious attention. “We say,”
he wrote, towards the close, “that Kings are God’s Vicegerents
upon Earth; but almost every human being has, at one time or other of
his life, a portion of the happiness of those around him in his power,
which might make him tremble, if he did but see it in all its fulness.”
To this book Arthur Helps added an essay “On the Means of Improving
the Health and Increasing the Comfort of the Labouring Classes.”</p>
<p>His next book was this First Series of “Friends in Council,”
published in 1847, and followed by other series in later years.
There were many other writings of his, less popular than they would
have been if the same abilities had been controlled by less good taste.
His “History of the Conquest of the New World” in 1848,
and of “The Spanish Conquest of America,” in four volumes,
from 1855 to 1861, preceded his obtaining from his University, in 1864,
the honorary degree of D.C.L. In June, 1860, Arthur Helps was
made Clerk of the Privy Council, and held that office of high trust
until his death on the 7th of March, 1875. He had become Sir Arthur
in 1872.<br /> H.
M.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<h2>FRIENDS IN COUNCIL.</h2>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<h3>CHAPTER I.</h3>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<p>None but those who, like myself, have once lived in intellectual
society, and then have been deprived of it for years, can appreciate
the delight of finding it again. Not that I have any right to
complain, if I were fated to live as a recluse for ever. I can
add little, or nothing, to the pleasure of any company; I like to listen
rather than to talk; and when anything apposite does occur to me, it
is generally the day after the conversation has taken place. I
do not, however, love good talk the less for these defects of mine;
and I console myself with thinking that I sustain the part of a judicious
listener, not always an easy one.</p>
<p>Great, then, was my delight at hearing last year that my old pupil,
Milverton, had taken a house which had long been vacant in our neighbourhood.
To add to my pleasure, his college friend, Ellesmere, the great lawyer,
also an old pupil of mine, came to us frequently in the course of the
autumn. Milverton was at that time writing some essays which he
occasionally read to Ellesmere and myself. The conversations which
then took place I am proud to say that I have chronicled. I think
they must be interesting to the world in general, though of course not
so much so as to me.</p>
<p>Milverton and Ellesmere were my favourite pupils. Many is the
heartache I have had at finding that those boys, with all their abilities,
would do nothing at the University. But it was in vain to urge
them. I grieve to say that neither of them had any ambition of
the right kind. Once I thought I had stimulated Ellesmere to the
proper care and exertion; when, to my astonishment and vexation, going
into his rooms about a month before an examination, I found that, instead
of getting up his subjects, like a reasonable man, he was absolutely
endeavouring to invent some new method for proving something which had
been proved before in a hundred ways. Over this he had wasted
two days, and from that moment I saw it was useless to waste any more
of my time and patience in urging a scholar so indocile for the beaten
path.</p>
<p>What tricks he and Milverton used to play me, pretending not to understand
my demonstration of some mathematical problem, inventing all manner
of subtle difficulties, and declaring they could not go on while these
stumbling-blocks lay in their way! But I am getting into college
gossip, which may in no way delight my readers. And I am fancying,
too, that Milverton and Ellesmere are the boys they were to me; but
I am now the child to them. During the years that I have been
quietly living here, they have become versed in the ways of the busy
world. And though they never think of asserting their superiority,
I feel it, and am glad to do so.</p>
<p>My readers would, perhaps, like one to tell them something of the
characters of Ellesmere and Milverton; but it would ill become me to
give that insight into them, which I, their college friend and tutor,
imagine I have obtained. Their friendship I could never understand.
It was not on the surface very warm, and their congeniality seemed to
result more from one or two large common principles of thought than
from any peculiar similarity of taste, or from great affection on either
side. Yet I should wrong their friendship if I were to represent
it otherwise than a most true-hearted one; more so, perhaps, than some
of softer texture. What needs be seen of them individually will
be by their words, which I hope I have in the main retained.</p>
<p>The place where we generally met in fine weather was on the lawn
before Milverton’s house. It was an eminence which commanded
a series of valleys sloping towards the sea. And, as the sea was
not more than nine miles off, it was a matter of frequent speculation
with us whether the landscape was bounded by air or water. In
the first valley was a little town of red brick houses, with poplars
coming up amongst them. The ruins of a castle, and some water
which, in olden times, had been the lake in “the pleasaunce,”
were between us and the town. The clang of an anvil, or the clamour
of a horn, or busy wheelwright’s sounds, came faintly up to us
when the wind was south.</p>
<p>I must not delay my readers longer with my gossip, but bring them
at once into the conversation that preceded our first reading.</p>
<p> -----</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I tell you, Ellesmere, these are the only
heights I care to look down from, the heights of natural scenery.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Pooh! my dear Milverton, it is only because
the particular mounds which the world calls heights, you think you have
found out to be but larger ant-heaps. Whenever you have cared
about anything, a man more fierce and unphilosophical in the pursuit
of it I never saw. To influence men’s minds by writing for
them, is that no ambition?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. It may be, but I have it not. Let any
kind critic convince me that what I am now doing is useless, or has
been done before, or that, if I leave it undone, some one else will
do it to my mind; and I should fold up my papers, and watch the turnips
grow in that field there, with a placidity that would, perhaps, seem
very spiritless to your now restless and ambitious nature, Ellesmere.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. If something were to happen which will not,
then - O Philosophy, Philosophy, you, too, are a good old nurse, and
rattle your rattles for your little people, as well as old Dame World
can do for hers. But what are we to have to-day for our first
reading?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. An Essay on Truth.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well, had I known this before, it is not
the novelty of the subject which would have dragged me up the hill to
your house. By the way, philosophers ought not to live upon hills.
They are much more accessible, and I think quite as reasonable, when,
Diogenes-like, they live in tubs upon flat ground. Now for the
essay.</p>
<p>TRUTH.</p>
<p>Truth is a subject which men will not suffer to grow old. Each
age has to fight with its own falsehoods: each man with his love of
saying to himself and those around him pleasant things and things serviceable
for to-day, rather than the things which are. Yet a child appreciates
at once the divine necessity for truth; never asks, “What harm
is there in saying the thing that is not?” and an old man finds,
in his growing experience, wider and wider applications of the great
doctrine and discipline of truth.</p>
<p>Truth needs the wisdom of the serpent as well as the simplicity of
the dove. He has gone but a little way in this matter who supposes
that it is an easy thing for a man to speak the truth, “the thing
he troweth;” and that it is a casual function, which may be fulfilled
at once after any lapse of exercise. But, in the first place,
the man who would speak truth must know what he troweth. To do
that, he must have an uncorrupted judgment. By this is not meant
a perfect judgment or even a wise one, but one which, however it may
be biassed, is not bought - is still a judgment. But some people’s
judgments are so entirely gained over by vanity, selfishness, passion,
or inflated prejudices and fancies long indulged in; or they have the
habit of looking at everything so carelessly, that they see nothing
truly. They cannot interpret the world of reality. And this
is the saddest form of lying, “the lie that sinketh in,”
as Bacon says, which becomes part of the character and goes on eating
the rest away.</p>
<p>Again, to speak truth, a man must not only have that martial courage
which goes out, with sound of drum and trumpet, to do and suffer great
things; but that domestic courage which compels him to utter small sounding
truths in spite of present inconvenience and outraged sensitiveness
or sensibility. Then he must not be in any respect a slave to
self-interest. Often it seems as if but a little misrepresentation
would gain a great good for us; or, perhaps, we have only to conceal
some trifling thing, which, if told, might hinder unreasonably, as we
think, a profitable bargain. The true man takes care to tell,
notwithstanding. When we think that truth interferes at one time
or another with all a man’s likings, hatings, and wishes, we must
admit, I think, that it is the most comprehensive and varied form of
self-denial.</p>
<p>Then, in addition to these great qualities, truth-telling in its
highest sense requires a well-balanced mind. For instance, much
exaggeration, perhaps the most, is occasioned by an impatient and easily
moved temperament which longs to convey its own vivid impressions to
other minds, and seeks by amplifying to gain the full measure of their
sympathy. But a true man does not think what his hearers are feeling,
but what he is saying.</p>
<p>More stress might be laid than has been on the intellectual requisites
for truth, which are probably the best part of intellectual cultivation;
and as much caused by truth as causing it. <a name="citation12"></a><a href="#footnote12">{12}</a>
But, putting the requisites for truth at the fewest, see of how large
a portion of the character truth is the resultant. If you were
to make a list of those persons accounted the religious men of their
respective ages, you would have a ludicrous combination of characters
essentially dissimilar. But true people are kindred. Mention
the eminently true men, and you will find that they are a brotherhood.
There is a family likeness throughout them.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>If we consider the occasions of exercising truthfulness and descend
to particulars, we may divide the matter into the following heads: -
truth to oneself - truth to mankind in general - truth in social relations
- truth in business - truth in pleasure.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>1. Truth to oneself. All men have a deep interest that
each man should tell himself the truth. Not only will he become
a better man, but he will understand them better. If men knew
themselves, they could not be intolerant to others.</p>
<p>It is scarcely necessary to say much about the advantage of a man
knowing himself for himself. To get at the truth of any history
is good; but a man’s own history - when he reads that truly, and,
without a mean and over-solicitous introspection, knows what he is about
and what he has been about, it is a Bible to him. “And David
said unto Nathan, I have sinned before the Lord.” David
knew the truth about himself. But truth to oneself is not merely
truth about oneself. It consists in maintaining an openness and
justness of soul which brings a man into relation with all truth.
For this, all the senses, if you might so call them, of the soul must
be uninjured - that is, the affections and the perceptions must be just.
For a man to speak the truth to himself comprehends all goodness; and
for us mortals can only be an aim.</p>
<p>2. Truth to mankind in general. This is a matter which,
as I read it, concerns only the higher natures. Suffice it to
say, that the withholding large truths from the world may be a betrayal
of the greatest trust.</p>
<p>3. Truth in social relations. Under this head come the
practices of making speech vary according to the person spoken to; of
pretending to agree with the world when you do not; of not acting according
to what is your deliberate and well-advised opinion because some mischief
may be made of it by persons whose judgment in this matter you do not
respect; of maintaining a wrong course for the sake of consistency;
of encouraging the show of intimacy with those whom you never can be
intimate with; and many things of the same kind. These practices
have elements of charity and prudence as well as fear and meanness in
them. Let those parts which correspond to fear and meanness be
put aside. Charity and prudence are not parasitical plants which
require boles of falsehood to climb up upon. It is often extremely
difficult in the mixed things of this world to act truly and kindly
too; but therein lies one of the great trials of man, that his sincerity
should have kindness in it, and his kindness truth.</p>
<p>4. Truth in business. The more truth you can get into
any business, the better. Let the other side know the defects
of yours, let them know how you are to be satisfied, let there be as
little to be found as possible (I should say nothing), and if your business
be an honest one, it will be best tended in this way. The talking,
bargaining, and delaying that would thus be needless, the little that
would then have to be done over again, the anxiety that would be put
aside, would even in a worldly way be “great gain.”
It is not, perhaps, too much to say, that the third part of men’s
lives is wasted by the effect, direct or indirect, of falsehoods.</p>
<p>Still, let us not be swift to imagine that lies are never of any
service. A recent Prime Minister said, that he did not know about
truth always prevailing and the like; but lies had been very successful
against his government. And this was true enough. Every
lie has its day. There is no preternatural inefficacy in it by
reason of its falseness. And this is especially the case with
those vague injurious reports which are no man’s lies, but all
men’s carelessness. But even as regards special and unmistakable
falsehood, we must admit that it has its success. A complete being
might deceive with wonderful effect; however, as nature is always against
a liar, it is great odds in the case of ordinary mortals. Wolsey
talks of</p>
<p> “Negligence<br /> Fit
for a fool to fall by,”</p>
<p>when he gives Henry the wrong packet; but the Cardinal was quite
mistaken. That kind of negligence was just the thing of which
far-seeing and thoughtful men are capable; and which, if there were
no higher motive, should induce them to rely on truth alone. A
very close vulpine nature, all eyes, all ears, may succeed better in
deceit. But it is a sleepless business. Yet, strange to
say, it is had recourse to in the most spendthrift fashion, as the first
and easiest thing that comes to hand.</p>
<p>In connection with truth in business, it may be observed that if
you are a truthful man, you should be watchful over those whom you employ;
for your subordinate agents are often fond of lying for your interests,
as they think. Show them at once that you do not think with them,
and that you will disconcert any of their inventions by breaking in
with the truth. If you suffer the fear of seeming unkind to prevent
your thrusting well-meant inventions aside, you may get as much pledged
to falsehoods as if you had coined and uttered them yourself.</p>
<p>5. Truth in pleasure. Men have been said to be sincere
in their pleasures; but this is only that the taste and habits of men
are more easily discernible in pleasure than in business. The
want of truth is as great a hindrance to the one as to the other.
Indeed, there is so much insincerity and formality in the pleasurable
department of human life, especially in social pleasures, that instead
of a bloom there is a slime upon it, which deadens and corrupts the
thing. One of the most comical sights to superior beings must
be to see two human creatures with elaborate speech and gestures making
each other exquisitely uncomfortable from civility: the one pressing
what he is most anxious that the other should not accept, and the other
accepting only from the fear of giving offence by refusal. There
is an element of charity in all this too; and it will be the business
of a just and refined nature to be sincere and considerate at the same
time. This will be better done by enlarging our sympathy, so that
more things and people are pleasant to us, than by increasing the civil
and conventional part of our nature, so that we are able to do more
seeming with greater skill and endurance. Of other false hindrances
to pleasure, such as ostentation and pretences of all kinds, there is
neither charity nor comfort in them. They may be got rid of altogether,
and no moaning made over them. Truth, which is one of the largest
creatures, opens out the way to the heights of enjoyment, as well as
to the depths of self-denial.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>It is difficult to think too highly of the merits and delights of
truth; but there is often in men’s minds an exaggerated notion
of some bit of truth, which proves a great assistance to falsehood.
For instance, the shame of some particular small falsehood, exaggeration,
or insincerity, becomes a bugbear which scares a man into a career of
false dealing. He has begun making a furrow a little out of the
line, and he ploughs on in it to try and give some consistency and meaning
to it. He wants almost to persuade himself that it was not wrong,
and entirely to hide the wrongness from others. This is a tribute
to the majesty of truth; also to the world’s opinion about truth.
It proceeds, too, upon the notion that all falsehoods are equal, which
is not the case; or on some fond craving for a show of perfection, which
is sometimes very inimical to the reality. The practical, as well
as the high-minded, view in such cases, is for a man to think how he
can be true now. To attain that, it may, even for this world,
be worth while for a man to admit that he is inconsistent, and even
that he has been untrue. His hearers, did they know anything of
themselves, would be fully aware that he was not singular, except in
the courage of owning his insincerity.</p>
<p> -----</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. That last part requires thinking about.
If you were to permit men, without great loss of reputation, to own
that they had been insincere, you might break down some of that majesty
of truth you talk about. And bad men might avail themselves of
any facilities of owning insincerity, to commit more of it. I
can imagine that the apprehension of this might restrain a man from
making any such admission as you allude to, even if he could make up
his mind to do it otherwise.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes; but can anything be worse than a man
going on in a false course? Each man must look to his own truthfulness,
and keep that up as well as he can, even at the risk of saying, or doing,
something which may be turned to ill account by others. We may
think too much about this reflection of our external selves. Let
the real self be right. I am not so fanciful as to expect men
to go about clamouring that they have been false; but at no risk of
letting people see that, or of even being obliged to own it, should
they persevere in it.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Milverton is right, I think.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Do not imagine that I am behind either of
you in a wish to hold up truth. My only doubt was as to the mode.
For my own part, I have such faith in truth that I take it mere concealment
is in most cases a mischief. And I should say, for instance, that
a wise man would be sorry that his fellows should think better of him
than he deserves. By the way, that is a reason why I should not
like to be a writer of moral essays, Milverton - one should be supposed
to be so very good.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Only by thoughtless people then. There
is a saying given to Rousseau, not that he ever did say it, for I believe
it was a misprint, but it was a possible saying for him, “Chaque
homme qui pense est méchant.” Now, without going
the length of this aphorism, we may say that what has been well written
has been well suffered.</p>
<p> “He best can paint them who has
felt them most.”</p>
<p>And so, though we should not exactly declare that writers who have
had much moral influence have been wicked men, yet we may admit that
they have been amongst the most struggling, which implies anything but
serene self-possession and perfect spotlessness. If you take the
great ones, Luther, Shakespeare, Goethe, you see this at once.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. David, St. Paul.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Such men are like great rocks on the seashore.
By their resistance, terraces of level land are formed; but the rocks
themselves bear many scars and ugly indents, while the sea of human
difficulty presents the same unwrinkled appearance in all ages.
Yet it has been driven back.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. But has it lost any of its bulk, or only
gone elsewhere? One part of the resemblance certainly is that
these same rocks, which were bulwarks, become, in their turn, dangers.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes, there is always loss in that way.
It is seldom given to man to do unmixed good. But it was not this
aspect of the simile that I was thinking of: it was the scarred appearance.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Scars not always of defeat or flight; scars
in the front.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Ah, it hardly does for us to talk of victory
or defeat, in these cases; but we may look at the contest itself as
something not bad, terminate how it may. We lament over a man’s
sorrows, struggles, disasters, and shortcomings; yet they were possessions
too. We talk of the origin of evil and the permission of evil.
But what is evil? We mostly speak of sufferings and trials as
good, perhaps, in their result; but we hardly admit that they may be
good in themselves. Yet they are knowledge - how else to be acquired,
unless by making men as gods, enabling them to understand without experience.
All that men go through may be absolutely the best for them - no such
thing as evil, at least in our customary meaning of the word.
But, you will say, they might have been created different and higher.
See where this leads to. Any sentient being may set up the same
claim: a fly that it had not been made a man; and so the end would be
that each would complain of not being all.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Say it all over again, my dear Milverton:
it is rather hard. [Milverton did so, in nearly the same words.]
I think I have heard it all before. But you may have it as you
please. I do not say this irreverently, but the truth is, I am
too old and too earthly to enter upon these subjects. I think,
however, that the view is a stout-hearted one. It is somewhat
in the same vein of thought that you see in Carlyle’s works about
the contempt of happiness. But in all these cases, one is apt
to think of the sage in “Rasselas,” who is very wise about
human misery till he loses his daughter. Your fly illustration
has something in it. Certainly when men talk big about what might
have been done for man, they omit to think what might be said, on similar
grounds, for each sentient creature in the universe. But here
have we been meandering off into origin of evil, and uses of great men,
and wickedness of writers, etc., whereas I meant to have said something
about the essay. How would you answer what Bacon maintains?
“A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure.”</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. He is not speaking of the lies of social
life, but of self-deception. He goes on to class under that head
“vain opinions, flattering hopes, false valuations, imaginations
as one would.” These things are the sweetness of “the
lie that sinketh in.” Many a man has a kind of mental kaleidoscope,
where the bits of broken glass are his own merits and fortunes, and
they fall into harmonious arrangements and delight him - often most
mischievously and to his ultimate detriment, but they are a present
pleasure.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well, I am going to be true in my pleasures:
to take a long walk alone. I have got a difficult case for an
opinion, which I must go and think over.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Shall we have another reading tomorrow?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes, if you are both in the humour for it.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<h3>CHAPTER II.</h3>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<p>As the next day was fine, we agreed to have our reading in the same
spot that I have described before. There was scarcely any conversation
worth noting, until after Milverton had read us the following essay
on Conformity.</p>
<p>CONFORMITY.</p>
<p>The conformity of men is often a far poorer thing than that which
resembles it amongst the lower animals. The monkey imitates from
imitative skill and gamesomeness: the sheep is gregarious, having no
sufficient will to form an independent project of its own. But
man often loathes what he imitates, and conforms to what he knows to
be wrong.</p>
<p>It will ever be one of the nicest problems for a man to solve how
far he shall profit by the thoughts of other men, and not be enslaved
by them. He comes into the world, and finds swaddling clothes
ready for his mind as well as his body. There is a vast scheme
of social machinery set up about him; and he has to discern how he can
make it work with him and for him, without becoming part of the machinery
himself. In this lie the anguish and the struggle of the greatest
minds. Most sad are they, having mostly the deepest sympathies,
when they find themselves breaking off from communion with other minds.
They would go on, if they could, with the opinions around them.
But, happily, there is something to which a man owes a larger allegiance
than to any human affection. He would be content to go away from
a false thing, or quietly to protest against it; but in spite of him
the strife in his heart breaks into burning utterance by word or deed.</p>
<p>Few, however, are those who venture, even for the shortest time,
into that hazy world of independent thought, where a man is not upheld
by a crowd of other men’s opinions, but where he must find a footing
of his own. Among the mass of men, there is little or no resistance
to conformity. Could the history of opinions be fully written,
it would be seen how large a part in human proceedings the love of conformity,
or rather the fear of non-conformity, has occasioned. It has triumphed
over all other fears; over love, hate, pity, sloth, anger, truth, pride,
comfort, self-interest, vanity, and maternal love. It has torn
down the sense of beauty in the human soul, and set up in its place
little ugly idols which it compels us to worship with more than Japanese
devotion. It has contradicted Nature in the most obvious things,
and been listened to with abject submission. Its empire has been
no less extensive than deep-seated. The serf to custom points
his finger at the slave to fashion - as if it signified whether it is
an old or a new thing which is irrationally conformed to. The
man of letters despises both the slaves of fashion and of custom, but
often runs his narrow career of thought, shut up, though he sees it
not, within close walls which he does not venture even to peep over.</p>
<p>It is hard to say in what department of human thought and endeavour
conformity has triumphed most. Religion comes to one’s mind
first; and well it may when one thinks what men have conformed to in
all ages in that matter. If we pass to art, or science, we shall
see there too the wondrous slavery which men have endured - from puny
fetters, moreover, which one stirring thought would, as we think, have
burst asunder. The above, however, are matters not within every
one’s cognisance; some of them are shut in by learning or the
show of it; and plain “practical” men would say, they follow
where they have no business but to follow. But the way in which
the human body shall be covered is not a thing for the scientific and
the learned only: and is allowed on all hands to concern, in no small
degree, one half at least of the creation. It is in such a simple
thing as dress that each of us may form some estimate of the extent
of conformity in the world. A wise nation, unsubdued by superstition,
with the collected experience of peaceful ages, concludes that female
feet are to be clothed by crushing them. The still wiser nations
of the west have adopted a swifter mode of destroying health, and creating
angularity, by crushing the upper part of the female body. In
such matters nearly all people conform. Our brother man is seldom
so bitter against us, as when we refuse to adopt at once his notions
of the infinite. But even religious dissent were less dangerous
and more respectable than dissent in dress. If you want to see
what men will do in the way of conformity, take a European hat for your
subject of meditation. I dare say there are twenty-two millions
of people at this minute each wearing one of these hats in order to
please the rest. As in the fine arts, and in architecture, especially,
so in dress, something is often retained that was useful when something
else was beside it. To go to architecture for an instance, a pinnacle
is retained, not that it is of any use where it is, but in another kind
of building it would have been. That style of building, as a whole,
has gone out of fashion, but the pinnacle has somehow or other kept
its ground and must be there, no one insolently going back to first
principles and asking what is the use and object of building pinnacles.
Similar instances in dress will occur to my readers. Some of us
are not skilled in such affairs; but looking at old pictures we may
sometimes see how modern clothes have attained their present pitch of
frightfulness and inconvenience. This matter of dress is one in
which, perhaps, you might expect the wise to conform to the foolish;
and they have.</p>
<p>When we have once come to a right estimate of the strength of conformity,
we shall, I think, be more kindly disposed to eccentricity than we usually
are. Even a wilful or an absurd eccentricity is some support against
the weighty common-place conformity of the world. If it were not
for some singular people who persist in thinking for themselves, in
seeing for themselves, and in being comfortable, we should all collapse
into a hideous uniformity.</p>
<p>It is worth while to analyse that influence of the world which is
the right arm of conformity. Some persons bend to the world in
all things, from an innocent belief that what so many people think must
be right. Others have a vague fear of the world as of some wild
beast which may spring out upon them at any time. Tell them they
are safe in their houses from this myriad-eyed creature: they still
are sure that they shall meet with it some day, and would propitiate
its favour at any sacrifice. Many men contract their idea of the
world to their own circle, and what they imagine to be said in that
circle of friends and acquaintances is their idea of public opinion
- ”as if,” to use a saying of Southey’s, “a
number of worldlings made a world.” With some unfortunate
people, the much dreaded “world” shrinks into one person
of more mental power than their own, or perhaps merely of coarser nature;
and the fancy as to what this person will say about anything they do,
sits upon them like a nightmare. Happy the man who can embark
his small adventure of deeds and thoughts upon the shallow waters round
his home, or send them afloat on the wide sea of humanity, with no great
anxiety in either case as to what reception they may meet with!
He would have them steer by the stars, and take what wind may come to
them.</p>
<p>A reasonable watchfulness against conformity will not lead a man
to spurn the aid of other men, still less to reject the accumulated
mental capital of ages. It does not compel us to dote upon the
advantages of savage life. We would not forego the hard-earned
gains of civil society because there is something in most of them which
tends to contract the natural powers, although it vastly aids them.
We would not, for instance, return to the monosyllabic utterance of
barbarous men, because in any formed language there are a thousand snares
for the understanding. Yet we must be most watchful of them.
And in all things, a man must beware of so conforming himself as to
crush his nature and forego the purpose of his being. We must
look to other standards than what men may say or think. We must
not abjectly bow down before rules and usages; but must refer to principles
and purposes. In few words, we must think, not whom we are following,
but what we are doing. If not, why are we gifted with individual
life at all? Uniformity does not consist with the higher forms
of vitality. Even the leaves of the same tree are said to differ,
each one from all the rest. And can it be good for the soul of
a man “with a biography of his own like to no one else’s,”
to subject itself without thought to the opinions and ways of others:
not to grow into symmetry, but to be moulded down into conformity?</p>
<p> ----</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well, I rather like that essay. I was
afraid, at first, it was going to have more of the fault into which
you essay writers generally fall, of being a comment on the abuse of
a thing, and not on the thing itself. There always seems to me
to want another essay on the other side. But I think, at the end,
you protect yourself against misconstruction. In the spirit of
the essay, you know, of course, that I quite agree with you. Indeed,
I differ from all the ordinary biographers of that independent gentleman,
Don’t Care. I believe Don’t Care came to a good end.
At any rate he came to some end. Whereas numbers of people never
have beginning, or ending, of their own. An obscure dramatist,
Milverton, whom we know of, makes one of his characters say, in reply
to some world-fearing wretch:</p>
<p> “While
you, you think<br /> What others think,
or what you think they’ll say,<br /> Shaping
your course by something scarce more tangible<br /> Than
dreams, at best the shadows on the stream<br /> Of
aspen leaves by flickering breezes swayed - <br /> Load
me with irons, drive me from morn till night,<br /> I
am not the utter slave which that man is<br /> Whose
sole word, thought, and deed are built on what<br /> The
world may say of him.”</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Never mind the obscure dramatist. But,
Ellesmere, you really are unreasonable, if you suppose that, in the
limits of a short essay, you can accurately distinguish all you write
between the use and the abuse of a thing. The question is, will
people misunderstand you - not, is the language such as to be logically
impregnable? Now, in the present case, no man will really suppose
it is a wise and just conformity that I am inveighing against.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I am not sure of that. If everybody
is to have independent thought, would there not be a fearful instability
and want of compactness? Another thing, too - conformity often
saves so much time and trouble.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes; it has its uses. I do not mean,
in the world of opinion and morality, that it should be all elasticity
and no gravitation; but at least enough elasticity to preserve natural
form and independent being.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I think it would have been better if you
had turned the essay another way, and instead of making it on conformity,
had made it on interference. That is the greater mischief and
the greater folly, I think. Why do people unreasonably conform?
Because they feel unreasonable interference. War, I say, is interference
on a small scale compared with the interference of private life.
Then the absurdity on which it proceeds; that men are all alike, or
that it is desirable that they should be; and that what is good for
one is good for all.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I must say, I think, Milverton, you do not
give enough credit for sympathy, good-nature, and humility as material
elements in the conformity of the world.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I am not afraid, my dear Dunsford, of the
essay doing much harm. There is a power of sleepy conformity in
the world. You may just startle your conformists for a minute,
but they gravitate into their old way very soon. You talk of their
humility, Dunsford, but I have heard people who have conformed to opinions,
without a pretence of investigation, as arrogant and intolerant towards
anybody who differed from them, as if they stood upon a pinnacle of
independent sagacity and research.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. One never knows, Ellesmere, on which side
you are. I thought you were on mine a minute or two ago; and now
you come down upon me with more than Milverton’s anti-conforming
spirit.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. The greatest mischief, as I take it, of this
slavish conformity, is in the reticence it creates. People will
be, what are called, intimate friends, and yet no real interchange of
opinion takes place between them. A man keeps his doubts, his
difficulties, and his peculiar opinions to himself. He is afraid
of letting anybody know that he does not exactly agree with the world’s
theories on all points. There is no telling the hindrance that
this is to truth.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. A great cause of this, Ellesmere, is in the
little reliance you can have on any man’s secrecy. A man
finds that what, in the heat of discussion, and in the perfect carelessness
of friendship, he has said to his friend, is quoted to people whom he
would never have said it to; knowing that it would be sure to be misunderstood,
or half-understood, by them. And so he grows cautious; and is
very loth to communicate to anybody his more cherished opinions, unless
they fall in exactly with the stream. Added to which, I think
there is in these times less than there ever was of a proselytising
spirit; and people are content to keep their opinions to themselves
- more perhaps from indifference than from fear.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Yes, I agree with you.</p>
<p>By the way, I think your taking dress as an illustration of extreme
conformity is not bad. Really it is wonderful the degree of square
and dull hideousness to which, in the process of time and tailoring,
and by severe conformity, the human creature’s outward appearance
has arrived. Look at a crowd of men from a height, what an ugly
set of ants they appear! Myself, when I see an Eastern man, one
of the people attached to their embassies, sweeping by us in something
flowing and stately, I feel inclined to take off my hat to him (only
that I think the hat might frighten him), and say, Here is a great,
unhatted, uncravated, bearded man, not a creature clipt and twisted
and tortured into tailorhood.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Ellesmere broke in upon me just now, so that
I did not say all that I meant to say. But, Milverton, what would
you admit that we are to conform to? In silencing the general
voice, may we not give too much opportunity to our own headstrong suggestions,
and to wilful licence?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes: to be somewhat deaf to the din of the
world may be no gain, even loss, if then we only listen more to the
worst part of ourselves; but in itself it is a good thing to silence
that din. It is at least a beginning of good. If anything
good is then gained, it is not a sheepish tendency, but an independent
resolve growing out of our nature. And, after all, when we talk
of non-conformity, it may only be that we non-conform to the immediate
sect of thought or action about us, to conform to a much wider thing
in human nature.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Ah me! how one wants a moral essayist always
at hand to enable one to make use of moral essays.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Your rules of law are grand things - the
proverbs of justice; yet has not each case its specialities, requiring
to be argued with much circumstance, and capable of different interpretations?
Words cannot be made into men.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I wonder you answer his sneers, Milverton.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I must go and see whether words cannot be
made into guineas: and then guineas into men is an easy thing.
These trains will not wait even for critics, so, for the present, good-bye.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<h3>CHAPTER III.</h3>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<p>Ellesmere soon wrote us word that he would be able to come down again;
and I agreed to be at Worth-Ashton (Milverton’s house) on the
day of his arrival. I had scarcely seated myself at our usual
place of meeting before the friends entered, and after greeting me,
the conversation thus began:</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Upon my word, you people who live in the
country have a pleasant time of it. As Milverton was driving me
from the station through Durley Wood, there was such a rich smell of
pines, such a twittering of birds, so much joy, sunshine, and beauty,
that I began to think, if there were no such place as London, it really
would be very desirable to live in the country.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. What a climax! But I am always very
suspicious, when Ellesmere appears to be carried away by any enthusiasm,
that it will break off suddenly, like the gallop of a post-horse.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Well, what are we to have for our essay!</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Despair.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I feel equal to anything just now, and so,
if it must be read sometime or other, let us have it now.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. You need not be afraid. I want to take
away, not to add gloom. Shall I read?</p>
<p>We assented, and he began.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>DESPAIR.</p>
<p>Despair may be serviceable when it arises from a temporary prostration
of spirits: during which the mind is insensibly healing, and her scattered
power silently returning. This is better than to be the sport
of a teasing hope without reason. But to indulge in despair as
a habit is slothful, cowardly, short-sighted; and manifestly tends against
Nature. Despair is then the paralysis of the soul.</p>
<p>These are the principal causes of despair - remorse, the sorrows
of the affections, worldly trouble, morbid views of religion, native
melancholy.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>REMORSE.</p>
<p>Remorse does but add to the evil which bred it, when it promotes,
not penitence, but despair. To have erred in one branch of our
duties does not unfit us for the performance of all the rest, unless
we suffer the dark spot to spread over our whole nature, which may happen
almost unobserved in the torpor of despair. This kind of despair
is chiefly grounded on a foolish belief that individual words or actions
constitute the whole life of man: whereas they are often not fair representatives
of portions even of that life. The fragments of rock in a mountain
stream may tell much of its history, are in fact results of its doings,
but they are not the stream. They were brought down when it was
turbid; it may now be clear: they are as much the result of other circumstances
as of the action of the stream; their history is fitful: they give us
no sure intelligence of the future course of the stream, or of the nature
of its waters; and may scarcely show more than that it has not been
always as it is. The actions of men are often but little better
indications of the men themselves.</p>
<p>A prolonged despair arising from remorse is unreasonable at any age,
but if possible, still more so when felt by the young. To think,
for example, that the great Being who made us could have made eternal
ruin and misery inevitable to a poor half-fledged creature of eighteen
or nineteen! And yet how often has the profoundest despair from
remorse brooded over children of that age and eaten into their hearts.</p>
<p>There is frequently much selfishness about remorse. Put what
has been done at the worst. Let a man see his own evil word, or
deed, in full light, and own it to be black as hell itself. He
is still here. He cannot be isolated. There still remain
for him cares and duties; and, therefore, hopes. Let him not in
imagination link all creation to his fate. Let him yet live in
the welfare of others, and, if it may be so, work out his own in this
way: if not, be content with theirs. The saddest cause of remorseful
despair is when a man does something expressly contrary to his character:
when an honourable man, for instance, slides into some dishonourable
action; or a tender-hearted man falls into cruelty from carelessness;
or, as often happens, a sensitive nature continues to give the greatest
pain to others from temper, feeling all the time, perhaps, more deeply
than the persons aggrieved. All these cases may be summed up in
the words, “That which I would not that I do,” the saddest
of all human confessions, made by one of the greatest men. However,
the evil cannot be mended by despair. Hope and humility are the
only supports under this burden. As Mr. Carlyle says,</p>
<p>“What are faults, what are the outward details of a life; if
the inner secret of it, the remorse, temptations, true, often-baffled,
never-ended struggle of it, be forgotten. ‘It is not in
man that walketh to direct his steps.’ Of all acts, is not,
for a man, <i>repentance</i> the most divine? The deadliest sin,
I say, were that same supercilious consciousness of no sin; that is
death: the heart so conscious is divorced from sincerity, humility,
and fact; is dead: it is ‘pure’ as dead dry sand is pure.
David’s life and history, as written for us in those Psalms of
his, I consider to be the truest emblem ever given of a man’s
moral progress and warfare here below. All earnest souls will
ever discern in it the faithful struggle of an earnest human soul towards
what is good and best. Struggle often baffled, sore baffled, down
as into entire wreck; yet a struggle never ended; ever, with tears,
repentance, true unconquerable purpose, begun anew. Poor human
nature! is not a man’s walking, in truth, always that: a ‘succession
of falls!’ Man can do no other. In this wild element
of a Life, he has to struggle onwards; now fallen, deep abased; and
ever, with tears, repentance, with bleeding heart, he has to rise again,
struggle again still onwards. That his struggle be a faithful
unconquerable one: this is the question of questions.”</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>THE SORROWS OF THE AFFECTIONS.</p>
<p>The loss by death of those we love has the first place in these sorrows.
Yet the feeling in this case, even when carried to the highest, is not
exactly despair, having too much warmth in it for that. Not much
can be said in the way of comfort on this head. Queen Elizabeth,
in her hard, wise way, writing to a mother who had lost her son, tells
her that she will be comforted in time; and why should she not do for
herself what the mere lapse of time will do for her? Brave words!
and the stern woman, more earnest than the sage in “Rasselas,”
would have tried their virtue on herself. But I fear they fell
somewhat coldly on the mother’s ear. Happily, in these bereavements,
kind Nature with her opiates, day by day administered, does more than
all the skill of the physician moralists. Sir Thomas Browne says,</p>
<p>“Darkness and light divide the course of time, and oblivion
shares with memory a great part even of our living beings; we slightly
remember our felicities, and the smartest strokes of affliction leave
but short smart upon us. Sense endureth no extremities, and sorrows
destroy us or themselves. To weep into stones are fables.
Afflictions induce callosities, miseries are slippery, or fall like
snow upon us, which, notwithstanding, is no unhappy stupidity.
To be ignorant of evils to come, and forgetful of evils past, is a merciful
provision in Nature, whereby we digest the mixture of our few and evil
days, and our delivered senses not relapsing into cutting remembrances,
our sorrows are not kept raw by the edge of repetitions.”</p>
<p>The good knight thus makes much comfort out of our physical weakness.
But something may be done in a very different direction, namely, by
spiritual strength. By elevating and purifying the sorrow, we
may take it more out of matter, as it were, and so feel less the loss
of what is material about it.</p>
<p>The other sorrows of the affections which may produce despair, are
those in which the affections are wounded, as jealousy, love unrequited,
friendship betrayed and the like. As, in despair from remorse,
the whole life seems to be involved in one action: so in the despair
we are now considering, the whole life appears to be shut up in the
one unpropitious affection. Yet human nature, if fairly treated,
is too large a thing to be suppressed into despair by one affection,
however potent. We might imagine that if there were anything that
would rob life of its strength and favour, it is domestic unhappiness.
And yet how numerous is the bond of those whom we know to have been
eminently unhappy in some domestic relation, but whose lives have been
full of vigorous and kindly action. Indeed the culture of the
world has been largely carried on by such men. As long as there
is life in the plant, though it be sadly pent in, it will grow towards
any opening of light that is left for it.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>WORLDLY TROUBLE.</p>
<p>This appears too mean a subject for despair, or, at least, unworthy
of having any remedy, or soothing thought out of it. Whether a
man lives in a large room or a small one, rides or is obliged to walk,
gets a plenteous dinner every day, or a sparing one, do not seem matters
for despair. But the truth is, that worldly trouble, such for
instance, as loss of fortune, is seldom the simple thing that poets
would persuade us.</p>
<p> “The little or the much she gave
is quietly resigned;<br /> Content
with poverty, my soul I arm,<br /> And
virtue, though in rags will keep me warm.”</p>
<p>So sings Dryden, paraphrasing Horace, but each of them with their
knowledge of the world, cross-questioned in prose, could have told us
how the stings of fortune really are felt. The truth is, that
fortune is not exactly a distinct isolated thing which can be taken
away - ”and there an end.” But much has to be severed,
with undoubted pain in the operation. A man mostly feels that
his reputation for sagacity, often his honour, the comfort, too, or
supposed comfort, of others are embarked in his fortunes. Mere
stoicism, and resolves about fitting fortune to oneself, not oneself
to fortune, though good things enough in their way, will not always
meet the whole of the case. And a man who could bear personal
distress of any kind with Spartan indifference, may suffer himself to
be overwhelmed by despair growing out of worldly trouble. A frequent
origin of such despair, as indeed of all despair (not by any means excluding
despair from remorse), is pride. Let a man say to himself, “I
am not the perfect character I meant to be; this is not the conduct
I had imagined for myself; these are not the fortunate circumstances
I had always intended to be surrounded by.” Let him at once
admit that he is on a lower level than his ideal one; and then see what
is to be done there. This seems the best way of treating all that
part of worldly trouble which consists of self-reproval. We scarcely
know of any outward life continuously prosperous (and a very dull one
it would be): why should we expect the inner life to be one course of
unbroken self-improvement, either in prudence, or in virtue?</p>
<p>Before a man gives way to excessive grief about the fortunes of his
family being lost with his own, he should think whether he really knows
wherein lies the welfare of others. Give him some fairy power,
inexhaustible purses or magic lamps, not, however, applying to the mind;
and see whether he could make those whom he would favour good or happy.
In the East, they have a proverb of this kind, Happy are the children
of those fathers who go to the Evil One. But for anything that
our Western experience shows, the proverb might be reversed, and, instead
of running thus, Happy are the sons of those who have got money anyhow,
it might be, Happy are the sons of those who have failed in getting
money. In fact, there is no sound proverb to be made about it
either way. We know nothing about the matter. Our surest
influence for good or evil over others is, through themselves.
Our ignorance of what is physically good for any man may surely prevent
anything like despair with regard to that part of the fortunes of others
dear to us, which, as we think, is bound up with our own.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>MORBID VIEWS OF RELIGION.</p>
<p>As religion is the most engrossing subject that can be presented
to us, it will be considered in all states of mind and by all minds.
It is impossible but that the most hideous and perverted views of religion
must arise. To combat the particular views which may be supposed
to cause religious despair, would be too theological an undertaking
for this essay. One thing only occurs to me to say, namely, that
the lives and the mode of speaking about themselves adopted by the founders
of Christianity, afford the best contradiction to religious melancholy
that I believe can be met with.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>NATIVE MELANCHOLY.</p>
<p>There is such a thing. Jacques, without the “sundry contemplation”
of his travels, or any “simples” to “compound”
his melancholy form, would have ever been wrapped in a “most humorous
sadness.” It was innate. This melancholy may lay its
votaries open to any other cause of despair, but having mostly some
touch of philosophy (if it be not absolutely morbid), it is not unlikely
to preserve them from any extremity. It is not acute, but chronic.</p>
<p>It may be said in its favour that it tends to make men indifferent
to their own fortunes. But then the sorrow of the world presses
more deeply upon them. With large open hearts, the untowardness
of things present, the miseries of the past, the mischief, stupidity,
and error which reign in the world, at times almost crush your melancholy
men. Still, out of their sadness may come their strength, or,
at least, the best direction of it. Nothing, perhaps, is lost;
not even sin - much less sorrow.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I am glad you have ended as you have: for,
previously, you seemed to make too much of getting rid of all distress
of mind. I always liked that passage in “Philip van Artevelde,”
where Father John says,</p>
<p> “He that lacks time to mourn,
lacks time to mend.<br /> Eternity
mourns that.”</p>
<p>You have a better memory than I have: how does it go on?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>.<br /> “’Tis
an ill cure<br /> For life’s
worst ills, to have no time to feel them.<br /> Where
sorrow’s held intrusive and turned out,<br /> There
wisdom will not enter, nor true power,<br /> Nor
aught that dignifies humanity.”</p>
<p>Still this does not justify despair, which was what I was writing
about.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Perhaps it was not a just criticism of mine.
One part of the subject you have certainly omitted. You do not
tell us how much there often is of physical disorder in despair.
I dare say you will think it a coarse and unromantic mode of looking
at things; but I must confess I agree with what Leigh Hunt has said
somewhere, that one can walk down distress of mind - even remorse, perhaps.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes; I am for the Peripatetics against all
other philosophers.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. By the way, there is a passage in one of
Hazlitt’s essays, I thought of while you were reading, about remorse
and religious melancholy. He speaks of mixing up religion and
morality; and then goes on to say, that Calvinistic notions have obscured
and prevented self-knowledge. <a name="citation42"></a><a href="#footnote42">{42}</a></p>
<p>Give me the essay - there is a passage I want to look at. This
comparison of life to a mountain stream, the rocks brought down by it
being the actions, is too much worked out. When we speak of similes
not going on four legs, it implies, I think, that a simile is at best
but a four-legged animal. Now this is almost a centipede of a
simile. I think I have had the same thought as yours here, and
I have compared the life of an individual to a curve. You both
smile. Now I thought that Dunsford at any rate would be pleased
with this reminiscence of college days. But to proceed with my
curve. You may have numbers of the points through which it passes
given, and yet know nothing of the nature of the curve itself.
See, now, it shall pass through here and here, but how it will go in
the interval, what is the law of its being, we know not. But this
simile would be too mathematical, I fear.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I hold to the centipede.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Not a word has Dunsford said all this time.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I like the essay. I was not criticising
as we went along, but thinking that perhaps the greatest charm of books
is, that we see in them that other men have suffered what we have.
Some souls we ever find who could have responded to all our agony, be
it what it may. This at least robs misery of its loneliness.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. On the other hand, the charm of intercourse
with our fellows, when we are in sadness, is that they do not reflect
it in any way. Each keeps his own trouble to himself, and often
pretending to think and care about other things, comes to do so for
the time.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Well, but you might choose books which would
not reflect your troubles.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. But the fact of having to make a choice to
do this, does away, perhaps, with some part of the benefit: whereas,
in intercourse with living men, you take what you find, and you find
that neither your trouble, nor any likeness of it, is absorbing other
people. But this is not the whole reason: the truth is, the life
and impulses of other men are catching; you cannot explain exactly how
it is that they take you out of yourself.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. No man is so confidential as when he is addressing
the whole world. You find, therefore, more comfort for sorrow
in books than in social intercourse. I mean more direct comfort;
for I agree with what Ellesmere says about society.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. In comparing men and books, one must always
remember this important distinction - that one can put the books down
at any time. As Macaulay says, “Plato is never sullen.
Cervantes is never petulant. Demosthenes never comes unseasonably.
Dante never stays too long.”</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Besides, one can manage to agree so well,
intellectually, with a book; and intellectual differences are the source
of half the quarrels in the world.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Judicious shelving!</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Judicious skipping will nearly do.
Now when one’s friend, or oneself, is crotchety, dogmatic, or
disputatious, one cannot turn over to another day.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Don’t go, Dunsford. Here is a
passage in the essay I meant to have said something about - ”why
should we expect the inner life to be one course of unbroken self-improvement,”
etc. - You recollect? Well, it puts me in mind of a conversation
between a complacent poplar and a grim old oak, which I overheard the
other day. The poplar said that it grew up quite straight, heavenwards,
that all its branches pointed the same way, and always had done so.
Turning to the oak, which it had been talking at before for some time,
the poplar went on to remark, that it did not wish to say anything unfriendly
to a brother of the forest, but those warped and twisted branches seemed
to show strange struggles. The tall thing concluded its oration
by saying, that it grew up very fast, and that when it had done growing,
it did not suffer itself to be made into huge floating engines of destruction.
But different trees had different tastes. There was then a sound
from the old oak, like an “ah” or a “whew,”
or, perhaps, it was only the wind amongst its resisting branches; and
the gaunt creature said that it had had ugly winds from without and
cross-grained impulses from within; that it knew it had thrown out awkwardly
a branch here and a branch there, which would never come quite right
again it feared; that men worked it up, sometimes for good and sometimes
for evil - but that at any rate it had not lived for nothing.
The poplar began again immediately, for this kind of tree can talk for
ever, but I patted the old oak approvingly and went on.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Well, your trees divide their discourse somewhat
Ellesmerically: they do not talk with the simplicity La Fontaine’s
would; but there is a good deal in them. They are not altogether
sappy.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I really thought of this fable of mine the
other day, as I was passing the poplar at the end of the valley, and
I determined to give it you on the first occasion.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I hope, Ellesmere, you do not intend to put
sarcastic notions into the sap of our trees hereabouts. There’s
enough of sarcasm in you to season a whole forest.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Dunsford is afraid of what the trees may
say to the country gentlemen, and whether they will be able to answer
them. I will be careful not to make the trees too clever.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Let us go and try if we can hear any more
forest talk. The winds, shaped into voices by the leaves, say
many things to us at all times.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<h3>CHAPTER IV.</h3>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<p>In the course of our walk Milverton promised to read the following
essay on Recreation the next day. I have no note of anything that
was said before the reading.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>RECREATION.</p>
<p>This subject has not had the thought it merits. It seems trivial.
It concerns some hours in the daily life of each of us; but it is not
connected with any subject of human grandeur, and we are rather ashamed
of it. Schiller has some wise, but hard words that relate to it.
He perceives the pre-eminence of the Greeks, who could do many things.
He finds that modern men are units of great nations; but not great units
themselves. And there is some room for this reasoning of his.</p>
<p>Our modern system of division of labour divides wits also.
The more necessity there is, therefore, for funding in recreation something
to expand men’s intelligence. There are intellectual pursuits
almost as much divided as pin-making; and many a man goes through some
intellectual process, for the greater part of his working hours, which
corresponds with the making of a pin’s head. Must there
not be some danger of a general contraction of mind from this convergence
of attention upon something very small, for so considerable a portion
of a man’s life?</p>
<p>What answer can civilisation give to this? It can say that
greater results are worked out by the modern system; that though each
man is doing less himself than he might have done in former days, he
sees greater and better things accomplished; and that his thoughts,
not bound down by his petty occupation, travel over the work of the
human family. There is a great deal, doubtless, in this argument;
but man is not altogether an intellectual recipient. He is a constructive
animal also. It is not the knowledge that you can pour into him
that will satisfy him, or enable him to work out his nature. He
must see things for himself; he must have bodily work and intellectual
work different from his bread-getting work; or he runs the danger of
becoming a contracted pedant with a poor mind and a sickly body.</p>
<p>I have seen it quoted from Aristotle, that the end of labour is to
gain leisure. It is a great saying. We have in modern times
a totally wrong view of the matter. Noble work is a noble thing,
but not all work. Most people seem to think that any business
is in itself something grand; that to be intensely employed, for instance,
about something which has no truth, beauty, or usefulness in it, which
makes no man happier or wiser, is still the perfection of human endeavour,
so that the work be intense. It is the intensity, not the nature,
of the work that men praise. You see the extent of this feeling
in little things. People are so ashamed of being caught for a
moment idle, that if you come upon the most industrious servants or
workmen whilst they are standing looking at something which interests
them, or fairly resting, they move off in a fright, as if they were
proved, by a moment’s relaxation, to be neglectful of their work.
Yet it is the result that they should mainly be judged by, and to which
they should appeal. But amongst all classes, the working itself,
incessant working, is the thing deified. Now what is the end and
object of most work? To provide for animal wants. Not a
contemptible thing by any means, but still it is not all in all with
man. Moreover, in those cases where the pressure of bread-getting
is fairly past, we do not often find men’s exertions lessened
on that account. There enter into their minds as motives, ambition,
a love of hoarding, or a fear of leisure - things which, in moderation,
may be defended or even justified; but which are not so peremptory,
and upon the face of them excellent, that they at once dignify excessive
labour.</p>
<p>The truth is, that to work insatiably requires much less mind than
to work judiciously, and less courage than to refuse work that cannot
be done honestly. For a hundred men whose appetite for work can
be driven on by vanity, avarice, ambition, or a mistaken notion of advancing
their families, there is about one who is desirous of expanding his
own nature and the nature of others in all directions, of cultivating
many pursuits, of bringing himself and those around him in contact with
the universe in many points, of being a man and not a machine.</p>
<p>It may seem as if the preceding arguments were directed rather against
excessive work than in favour of recreation. But the first object
in an essay of this kind should be to bring down the absurd estimate
that is often formed of mere work. What ritual is to the formalist,
or contemplation to the devotee, business is to the man of the world.
He thinks he cannot be doing wrong as long as he is doing that.</p>
<p>No doubt hard work is a great police agent. If everybody were
worked from morning till night and then carefully locked up, the register
of crimes might be greatly diminished. But what would become of
human nature? Where would be the room for growth in such a system
of things? It is through sorrow and mirth, plenty and need, a
variety of passions, circumstances, and temptations, even through sin
and misery, that men’s natures are developed.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Again, there are people who would say, “Labour is not all;
we do not object to the cessation of labour - a mere provision for bodily
ends; but we fear the lightness and vanity of what you call recreation.”
Do these people take heed of the swiftness of thought - of the impatience
of thought? What will the great mass of men be thinking of, if
they are taught to shun amusements and the thoughts of amusement?
If any sensuality is left open to them, they will think of that.
If not sensuality, then avarice, or ferocity for “the cause of
God,” as they would call it. People who have had nothing
else to amuse them have been very apt to indulge themselves in the excitement
of persecuting their fellow creatures.</p>
<p>Our nation, the northern part of it especially, is given to believe
in the sovereign efficacy of dulness. To be sure, dulness and
solid vice are apt to go hand in hand. But then, according to
our notions, dulness is in itself so good a thing - almost a religion.</p>
<p>Now, if ever a people required to be amused, it is we sad-hearted
Anglo-Saxons. Heavy eaters, hard thinkers, often given up to a
peculiar melancholy of our own, with a climate that for months together
would frown away mirth if it could - many of us with very gloomy thoughts
about our hereafter - if ever there were a people who should avoid increasing
their dulness by all work and no play, we are that people. “They
took their pleasure sadly,” says Froissart, “after their
fashion.” We need not ask of what nation Froissart was speaking.</p>
<p>There is a theory which has done singular mischief to the cause of
recreation and of general cultivation. It is that men cannot excel
in more things than one; and that if they can, they had better be quiet
about it. “Avoid music, do not cultivate art, be not known
to excel in any craft but your own,” says many a worldly parent,
thereby laying the foundation of a narrow, greedy character, and destroying
means of happiness and of improvement which success, or even real excellence,
in one profession only cannot give. This is, indeed, a sacrifice
of the end of living for the means.</p>
<p>Another check to recreation is the narrow way in which people have
hitherto been brought up at schools and colleges. The classics
are pre-eminent works. To acquire an accurate knowledge of them
is an admirable discipline. Still, it would be well to give a
youth but few of these great works, and so leave time for various arts,
accomplishments, and knowledge of external things exemplified by other
means than books. If this cannot be done but by over-working,
then it had better not be done; for of all things, that must be avoided.
But surely it can be done. At present, many a man who is versed
in Greek metre, and afterwards full of law reports, is childishly ignorant
of Nature. Let him walk with an intelligent child for a morning,
and the child will ask him a hundred questions about sun, moon, stars,
plants, birds, building, farming, and the like, to which he can give
very sorry answers, if any; or, at the best, he has but a second-hand
acquaintance with Nature. Men’s conceits are his main knowledge.
Whereas, if he had any pursuits connected with Nature, all Nature is
in harmony with it, is brought into his presence by it, and it affords
at once cultivation and recreation.</p>
<p>But, independently of those cultivated pursuits which form a high
order of recreation, boyhood should never pass without the boy’s
learning several modes of recreation of the humbler kind. A parent
or teacher seldom does a kinder thing by the child under his care than
when he instructs it in some manly exercise, some pursuit connected
with Nature out of doors, or even some domestic game. In hours
of fatigue, anxiety, sickness, or worldly ferment, such means of amusement
may delight the grown-up man when other things would fail.</p>
<p>An indirect advantage, but a very considerable one, attendant upon
various modes of recreation, is, that they provide opportunities of
excelling in something to boys and men who are dull in things which
form the staple of education. A boy cannot see much difference
between the nominative and the genitive cases - still less any occasion
for aorists - but he is a good hand at some game or other; and he keeps
up his self-respect, and the respect of others for him, upon his prowess
in that game. He is better and happier on that account.
And it is well, too, that the little world around him should know that
excellence is not all of one form.</p>
<p>There are no details about recreation in this essay, the object here
being mainly to show the worth of recreation, and to defend it against
objections from the over-busy and the over-strict. The sense of
the beautiful, the desire for comprehending Nature, the love of personal
skill and prowess, are not things implanted in men merely to be absorbed
in producing and distributing the objects of our most obvious animal
wants. If civilisation required this, civilisation would be a
failure. Still less should we fancy that we are serving the cause
of godliness when we are discouraging recreation. Let us be hearty
in our pleasures, as in our work, and not think that the gracious Being
Who has made us so open-hearted to delight, looks with dissatisfaction
at our enjoyment, as a hard taskmaster might, who in the glee of his
slaves could see only a hindrance to their profitable working.
And with reference to our individual cultivation, we may remember that
we are not here to promote incalculable quantities of law, physic, or
manufactured goods, but to become men - not narrow pedants, but wide-seeing,
mind-travelled men. Who are the men of history to be admired most?
Those whom most things became - who could be weighty in debate, of much
device in council, considerate in a sick-room, genial at a feast, joyous
at a festival, capable of discourse with many minds, large-souled, not
to be shrivelled up into any one form, fashion, or temperament.
Their contemporaries would have told us that men might have various
accomplishments and hearty enjoyments, and not for that be the less
effective in business, or less active in benevolence. I distrust
the wisdom of asceticism as much as I do that of sensuality; Simeon
Stylites no less than Sardanapalus.</p>
<p> -----</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. You alluded to Schiller at the beginning
of the essay: can you show me his own words? I have a lawyer’s
liking for the best evidence.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. When we go in, I will show you some passages
which bear me out in what I have made him say - at least, if the translation
is faithful. <a name="citation53"></a><a href="#footnote53">{53}</a></p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I have had a great respect for Schiller ever
since I heard that saying of his about death, “Death cannot be
an evil, for it is universal.”</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Very noble and full of faith.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Touching the essay, I like it well enough;
but, perhaps, people will expect to find more about recreation itself
- not only about the good of it, but what it is, and how it is to be
got.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I do not incline to go into detail about
the matter. The object was to say something for the respectability
of recreation, not to write a chapter of a book of sports. People
must find out their own ways of amusing themselves.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I will tell you what is the paramount thing
to be attended to in all amusements - that they should be short.
Moralists are always talking about “short-lived” pleasures:
would that they were!</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Hesiod told the world, some two thousand years
ago, how much greater the half is than the whole.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Dinner-givers and managers of theatres should
forthwith be made aware of that fact. What a sacrifice of good
things, and of the patience and comfort of human beings, a cumbrous
modern dinner is! I always long to get up and walk about.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Do not talk of modern dinners. Think
what a Roman dinner must have been.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Very true. It has always struck me
that there is something quite military in the sensualism of the Romans
- an “arbiter bibendi” chosen, and the whole feast moving
on with fearful precision and apparatus of all kinds. Come, come!
the world’s improving, Ellesmere.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Had the Romans public dinners? Answer
me that. Imagine a Roman, whose theory, at least, of a dinner
was that it was a thing for enjoyment, whereas we often look on it as
a continuation of the business of the day - I say, imagine a Roman girding
himself up, literally girding himself up to make an after-dinner speech.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I must allow that is rather a barbarous practice.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. If charity, or politics, cannot be done without
such things, I suppose they are useful in their way; but let nobody
ever imagine that they are a form of pleasure. People smearing
each other over with stupid flattery, and most of the company being
in dread of receiving some compliment which should oblige them to speak!</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I should have thought, now, that you would
always have had something to say, and therefore that you would not be
so bitter against after-dinner speaking.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. No; when I have nothing to say, I can say
nothing.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Would it not be a pleasant thing if rich
people would ask their friends sometimes to public amusements - order
a play for them, for instance - or at any rate, provide some manifest
amusement? They might, occasionally with great advantage, abridge
the expense of their dinners; and throw it into other channels of hospitality.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Ah, if they would have good acting at their
houses, that would be very delightful; but I cannot say that the being
taken to any place of public amusement would much delight me.
By the way, Milverton, what do you say of theatres in the way of recreation?
This decline of the drama, too, is a thing you must have thought about:
let us hear your notions.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I think one of the causes sometimes assigned,
that reading is more spread, is a true and an important one; but, otherwise,
I fancy that the present decline of the drama depends upon very small
things which might be remedied. As to a love of the drama going
out of the human heart, that is all nonsense. Put it at the lowest,
what a great pleasure it is to hear a good play read. And again,
as to serious pursuits unfitting men for dramatic entertainments, it
is quite the contrary. A man, wearied with care and business,
would find more change of ideas with less fatigue, in seeing a good
play, than in almost any other way of amusing himself.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. What are the causes then of the decline of
the drama?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. In England, or rather in London, - for London
is England for dramatic purposes; in London, then, theatrical arrangements
seem to be framed to drive away people of sense. The noisome atmosphere,
the difficult approach, the over-size of the great theatres, the intolerable
length of performances.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Hear! hear!</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. The crowding together of theatres in one
part of the town, the lateness of the hours - </p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. The folly of the audience, who always applaud
in the wrong place - </p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. There is no occasion to say any more; I am
quite convinced.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. But these annoyances need not be. Build
a theatre of moderate dimensions; give it great facility of approach;
take care that the performances never exceed three hours; let lions
and dwarfs pass by without any endeavour to get them within the walls;
lay aside all ambition of making stage waves which may almost equal
real Ramsgate waves to our cockney apprehensions. Of course there
must be good players and good plays.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Now we come to the part of Hamlet.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Good players and good plays are both to be
had if there were good demand for them. But, I was going to say,
let there be all these things, especially let there be complete ventilation,
and the theatre will have the most abundant success. Why, that
one thing alone, the villainous atmosphere at most public places, is
enough to daunt any sensible man from going to them.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. There should be such a choice of plays - not
merely Chamberlain-clipt - as any man or woman could go to.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. There should be certainly, but how is such
a choice to be made, if the people who could regulate it, for the most
part, stay away? It is a dangerous thing, the better classes leaving
any great source of amusement and instruction wholly, or greatly, to
the less refined classes.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Yes, I must confess it is.</p>
<p>Great part of your arguments apply to musical as well as to theatrical
entertainments. Do you find similar results with respect to them?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Why, they are not attended by any means as
they would be, or made what they might be, if the objections I mentioned
were removed.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. What do you say to the out-of-door entertainments
for a town population?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. As I said before, my dear Dunsford, I cannot
give you a chapter of a “Book of Sports.” There ought,
of course, to be parks for all quarters of the town: and I confess it
would please me better to see, in holiday times and hours of leisure,
hearty games going on in these parks, than a number of people sauntering
about in uncomfortably new and unaccustomed clothes.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Do you not see, Dunsford, that, like a cautious
official man, he does not want to enter into small details, which have
always an air of ridicule? He is not prepared to pledge himself
to cricket, golf, football, or prisoner’s bars; but in his heart
he is manifestly a Young Englander - without the white waistcoat.
Nothing would please him better than to see in large letters, on one
of those advertising vans, “Great match! Victoria Park!!
Eleven of Fleet Street against the Eleven of Saffron Hill!!!”</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Well, there is a great deal in the spirit
of Young England that I like very much, indeed that I respect.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I should like the Young England party better
myself if I were quite sure there was no connection between them and
a clan of sour, pity-mongering people, who wash one away with eternal
talk about the contrast between riches and poverty; with whom a poor
man is always virtuous; and who would, if they could, make him as envious
and as discontented as possible.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Nothing can be more strikingly in contrast
with such thinkers than Young England. Young Englanders, according
to the best of their theories, ought to be men of warm sympathy with
all classes. There is no doubt of this, that very seldom does
any good thing arise, but there comes an ugly phantom of a caricature
of it, which sidles up against the reality, mouths its favourite words
as a third-rate actor does a great part, under-mimics its wisdom, over-acts
its folly, is by half the world taken for it, goes some way to suppress
it in its own time, and, perhaps, lives for it in history.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well brought out, that metaphor, but I don’t
know that it means more than that the followers of a system do in general
a good deal to corrupt it, or that when a great principle is worked
into human affairs, a considerable accretion of human folly and falseness
mostly grows round it: which things some of us had a suspicion of before.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. To go back to the subject. What would
you do for country amusements, Milverton? That is what concerns
me, you know.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Athletic amusements go on naturally here:
do not require so much fostering as in towns. The commons must
be carefully kept: I have quite a Cobbettian fear of their being taken
away from us under some plausible pretext or other. Well, then,
it strikes me that a great deal might be done to promote the more refined
pleasures of life among our rural population. I hope we shall
live to see many of Hullah’s pupils playing an important part
in this way. Of course, the foundation for these things may best
be laid at schools; and is being laid in some places, I am happy to
say.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Humph, music, sing-song!</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Don’t you observe, Dunsford, that when
Ellesmere wants to attack us, and does not exactly see how, he mutters
to himself sarcastically, sneering himself up, as it were, to the attack.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. You and Dunsford are both wild for music,
from barrel-organs upwards.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I confess to liking the humblest attempts
at melody.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I feel as Sir Thomas Browne tells us he felt,
that “even that vulgar and tavern music, which makes one man merry,
another mad, strikes in me a deep fit of devotion and a profound contemplation
of the first composer. There is something in it of divinity more
than the ear discovers; it is an hieroglyphical and shadowed lesson
of the whole world and creatures of God: such a melody to the ear as
the whole world well understood, would afford the understanding.”</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Apropos of music in country places, when
I was going about last year in the neighbouring county, I saw such a
pretty scene at one of the towns. They had got up a band, which
played once a week in the evening. It was a beautiful summer evening,
and the window of my room at the end overlooked the open space they
had chosen for their performances. There was the great man of
the neighbourhood in his carriage looking as if he came partly on duty,
as well as for pleasure. Then there were burly tradesmen, with
an air of quiet satisfaction, sauntering about, or leaning against railings.
Some were no doubt critical - thought that Will Miller did not play
as well as usual this evening. Will’s young wife, who had
come out to look again at him in his band dress (for the band had a
uniform), thought differently. Little boys broke out into imaginary
polkas, having some distant reference to the music: not without grace
though. The sweep was pre-eminent: as if he would say, “Dirty
and sooty as I am I have a great deal of fun in me. Indeed, what
would May-day be but for me?” Studious little boys of the
free-school, all green grasshopper-looking, walked about as boys knowing
something of Latin. Here and there went a couple of them in childish
loving way, with their arms about each other’s necks. Matrons
and shy young maidens sat upon the door-steps near. Many a merry
laugh filled up the interludes of music. And when evening came
softly down upon us, the band finished with “God save the Queen,”
the little circle of those who would hear the last note moved off, there
was a clattering of shutters, a shining of lights through casement-windows,
and soon the only sound to be heard was the rough voice of some villager,
who would have been too timid to adventure anything by daylight, but
now sang boldly out as he went homewards.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Very pretty, but it sounds to me somewhat
fabulous.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I assure you - </p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Yes, you were tired, had a good dinner, read
a speech for or against the corn-laws, fell asleep of course, and had
this ingenious dream, which, to this day, you believe to have been a
reality. I understand it all.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I wish I could have many more such dreams.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<h3>CHAPTER V.</h3>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<p>Our last conversation broke off abruptly on the entrance of a visitor:
we forgot to name a time for our next meeting; and when I came again,
I found Milverton alone in his study. He was reading Count Rumford’s
essays.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. So you are reading Count Rumford. What
is it that interests you there?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Everything he writes about. He is to
me a delightful writer. He throws so much life into all his writings.
Whether they are about making the most of food or fuel, or propounding
the benefits of bathing, or inveighing against smoke, it is that he
went and saw and did and experimented himself upon himself. His
proceedings at Munich to feed the poor are more interesting than many
a novel. It is surprising, too, how far he was before the world
in all the things he gave his mind to.</p>
<p>Here Ellesmere entered.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I heard you were come, Dunsford: I hope we
shall have an essay to-day. My critical faculties have been dormant
for some days, and want to be roused a little. Milverton was talking
to you about Count Rumford when I came in, was he not? Ah, the
Count is a great favourite with Milverton when he is down here; but
there is a book upstairs which is Milverton’s real favourite just
now, a portentous-looking book; some relation to a blue-book, something
about sewerage, or health of towns, or public improvements, over which
said book our friend here goes into enthusiasms. I am sure if
it could be reduced to the size of that tatterdemalion Horace that he
carries about, the poor little Horace would be quite supplanted.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Now, I must tell you, Dunsford, that Ellesmere
himself took up this book he talks about, and it was a long time before
he put it down.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Yes, there is something in real life, even
though it is in the unheroic part of it, that interests one. I
mean to get through the book.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. What are we to have to-day for our essay?</p>
<p>Milverton. Let us adjourn to the garden, and I will read you
an essay on Greatness, if I can find it.</p>
<p>We went to our favourite place, and Milverton read us the following
essay.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>GREATNESS.</p>
<p>You cannot substitute any epithet for great, when you are talking
of great men. Greatness is not general dexterity carried to any
extent; nor proficiency in any one subject of human endeavour.
There are great astronomers, great scholars, great painters, even great
poets who are very far from great men. Greatness can do without
success and with it. William is greater in his retreats than Marlborough
in his victories. On the other hand, the uniformity of Cæsar’s
success does not dull his greatness. Greatness is not in the circumstances,
but in the man.</p>
<p>What does this greatness then consist in? Not in a nice balance
of qualities, purposes, and powers. That will make a man happy,
a successful man, a man always in his right depth. Nor does it
consist in absence of errors. We need only glance back at any
list that can be made of great men, to be convinced of that. Neither
does greatness consist in energy, though often accompanied by it.
Indeed, it is rather the breadth of the waters than the force of the
current that we look to, to fulfil our idea of greatness. There
is no doubt that energy acting upon a nature endowed with the qualities
that we sum up in the word cleverness, and directed to a few clear purposes,
produces a great effect, and may sometimes be mistaken for greatness.
If a man is mainly bent upon his own advancement, it cuts many a difficult
knot of policy for him, and gives a force and distinctness to his mode
of going on which looks grand. The same happens if he has one
pre-eminent idea of any kind, even though it should be a narrow one.
Indeed, success in life is mostly gained by unity of purpose; whereas
greatness often fails by reason of its having manifold purposes, but
it does not cease to be greatness on that account.</p>
<p>If greatness can be shut up in qualities, it will be found to consist
in courage and in openness of mind and soul. These qualities may
not seem at first to be so potent. But see what growth there is
in them. The education of a man of open mind is never ended.
Then, with openness of soul, a man sees some way into all other souls
that come near him, feels with them, has their experience, is in himself
a people. Sympathy is the universal solvent. Nothing is
understood without it. The capacity of a man, at least for understanding,
may almost be said to vary according to his powers of sympathy.
Again, what is there that can counteract selfishness like sympathy?
Selfishness may be hedged in by minute watchfulness and self-denial,
but it is counteracted by the nature being encouraged to grow out and
fix its tendrils upon foreign objects.</p>
<p>The immense defect that want of sympathy is, may be strikingly seen
in the failure of the many attempts that have been made in all ages
to construct the Christian character, omitting sympathy. It has
produced numbers of people walking up and down one narrow plank of self-restraint,
pondering over their own merits and demerits, keeping out, not the world
exactly, but their fellow-creatures from their hearts, and caring only
to drive their neighbours before them on this plank of theirs, or to
push them headlong. Thus, with many virtues, and much hard work
at the formation of character, we have had splendid bigots or censorious
small people.</p>
<p>But sympathy is warmth and light too. It is, as it were, the
moral atmosphere connecting all animated natures. Putting aside,
for a moment, the large differences that opinions, language, and education
make between men, look at the innate diversity of character. Natural
philosophers were amazed when they thought they had found a new-created
species. But what is each man but a creature such as the world
has not before seen? Then think how they pour forth in multitudinous
masses, from princes delicately nurtured to little boys on scrubby commons,
or in dark cellars. How are these people to be understood, to
be taught to understand each other, but by those who have the deepest
sympathies with all? There cannot be a great man without large
sympathy. There may be men who play loud-sounding parts in life
without it, as on the stage, where kings and great people sometimes
enter who are only characters of secondary import - deputy great men.
But the interest and the instruction lie with those who have to feel
and suffer most.</p>
<p>Add courage to this openness we have been considering, and you have
a man who can own himself in the wrong, can forgive, can trust, can
adventure, can, in short, use all the means that insight and sympathy
endow him with.</p>
<p>I see no other essential characteristics in the greatness of nations
than there are in the greatness of individuals. Extraneous circumstances
largely influence nations as individuals; and make a larger part of
the show of the former than of the latter; as we are wont to consider
no nation great that is not great in extent or resources, as well as
in character. But of two nations, equal in other respects, the
superiority must belong to the one which excels in courage and openness
of mind and soul.</p>
<p>Again, in estimating the relative merits of different periods of
the world, we must employ the same tests of greatness that we use to
individuals. To compare, for instance, the present and the past.
What astounds us most in the past is the wonderful intolerance and cruelty:
a cruelty constantly turning upon the inventors: an intolerance provoking
ruin to the thing it would foster. The most admirable precepts
are thrown from time to time upon this cauldron of human affairs, and
oftentimes they only seem to make it blaze the higher. We find
men devoting the best part of their intellects to the invariable annoyance
and persecution of their fellows. You might think that the earth
brought forth with more abundant fruitfulness in the past than now,
seeing that men found so much time for cruelty, but that you read of
famines and privations which these latter days cannot equal. The
recorded violent deaths amount to millions. And this is but a
small part of the matter. Consider the modes of justice; the use
of torture, for instance. What must have been the blinded state
of the wise persons (wise for their day) who used torture? Did
they ever think themselves, “What should we not say if we were
subjected to this?” Many times they must really have desired
to get at the truth; and such was their mode of doing it. Now,
at the risk of being thought “a laudator” of time present,
I would say, here is the element of greatness we have made progress
in. We are more open in mind and soul. We have arrived (some
of us at least) at the conclusion that men may honestly differ without
offence. We have learned to pity each other more. There
is a greatness in modern toleration which our ancestors knew not.</p>
<p>Then comes the other element of greatness, courage. Have we
made progress in that? This is a much more dubious question.
The subjects of terror vary so much in different times that it is difficult
to estimate the different degrees of courage shown in resisting them.
Men fear public opinion now as they did in former times the Star Chamber;
and those awful goddesses, Appearances, are to us what the Fates were
to the Greeks. It is hardly possible to measure the courage of
a modern against that of an ancient; but I am unwilling to believe but
that enlightenment must strengthen courage.</p>
<p>The application of the tests of greatness, as in the above instance,
is a matter of detail and of nice appreciation, as to the results of
which men must be expected to differ largely: the tests themselves remain
invariable - openness of nature to admit the light of love and reason,
and courage to pursue it.</p>
<p> -----</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I agree to your theory, as far as openness
of nature is concerned; but I do not much like to put that half-brute
thing, courage, so high.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Well, you cannot have greatness without it:
you may have well-intentioned people and far-seeing people; but if they
have no stoutness of heart, they will only be shifty or remonstrant,
nothing like great.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. You mean will, not courage. Without
will, your open-minded, open-hearted man may be like a great, rudderless
vessel driven about by all winds: not a small craft, but a most uncertain
one.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. No, I mean both: both will and courage.
Courage is the body to will.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I believe you are right in that; but do not
omit will. It amused me to see how you brought in one of your
old notions - that this age is not contemptible. You scribbling
people are generally on the other side.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. You malign us. If I must give any account
for my personal predilection for modern times, it consists perhaps in
this, that we may now speak our mind. What Tennyson says of his
own land,</p>
<p> “The land where, girt with friend
or foe,<br /> A man may say the thing
he will,” - </p>
<p>may be said, in some measure, of the age in which we live.
This is an inexpressible comfort. This doubles life. These
things surely may be said in favour of the present age, not with a view
to puff it up, but so far to encourage ourselves, as we may by seeing
that the world does not go on for nothing, that all the misery, blood,
and toil that have been spent, were not poured out in vain. Could
we have our ancestors again before us, would they not rejoice at seeing
what they had purchased for us: would they think it any compliment to
them to extol their times at the expense of the present, and so to intimate
that their efforts had led to nothing?</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. “I doubt,” as Lord Eldon would
have said; no, upon second thoughts, I do not doubt. I feel assured
that a good many of these said ancestors you are calling up would be
much discomforted at finding that all their suffering had led to no
sure basis of persecution of the other side.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I wonder, Ellesmere, what you would have done
in persecuting times. What escape would your sarcasm have found
for itself?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Some orthodox way, I daresay. I do
not think he would have been particularly fond of martyrdom.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. No. I have no taste for making torches
for truth, or being one: I prefer humane darkness to such illumination.
At the same time one cannot tell lies; and if one had been questioned
about the incomprehensibilities which men in former days were so fierce
upon, one must have shown that one disagreed with all parties.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Do not say “one:” <i>I</i>
should not have disagreed with the great Protestant leaders in the Reformation,
for instance.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Humph.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. If we get aground upon the Reformation, we
shall never push off again - else would I say something far from complimentary
to those Protestant proceedings which we may rather hope were Tudoresque
than Protestant.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. No, that is not fair. The Tudors were
a coarse, fierce race; but it will not do to lay the faults of their
times upon them only. Look at Elizabeth’s ministers.
They had about as much notion of religious tolerance as they had of
Professor Wheatstone’s telegraph. It was not a growth of
that age.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I do not know. You have Cardinal Pole
and the Earl of Essex, both tolerant men in the midst of bigots.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well, as you said, Milverton, we shall never
push off, if we once get aground on this subject.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I am in fault: so I will take upon myself
to bring you quite away from the Reformation. I have been thinking
of that comparison in the essay of the present with the past.
Such comparisons seem to me very useful, as they best enable us to understand
our own times. And, then, when we have ascertained the state and
tendency of our own age, we ought to strive to enrich it with those
qualities which are complementary to its own. Now with all this
toleration, which delights you so much, dear Milverton, is it not an
age rather deficient in caring about great matters?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. If you mean great speculative matters, I
might agree with you; but if you mean what I should call the greatest
matters, such as charity, humanity, and the like, I should venture to
differ with you, Dunsford.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I do not like to see the world indifferent
to great speculative matters. I then fear shallowness and earthiness.</p>
<p>Milverton. It is very difficult to say what the world is thinking
of now. It is certainly wrong to suppose that this is a shallow
age because it is not driven by one impulse. As civilisation advances,
it becomes more difficult to estimate what is going on, and we set it
all down as confusion. Now there is not one “great antique
heart,” whose beatings we can count, but many impulses, many circles
of thought in which men are moving many objects. Men are not all
in the same state of progress, so cannot be moved in masses as of old.
At one time chivalry urged all men, then the Church, and the phenomena
were few, simple, and broad, or at least they seem so in history.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Very true; still I agree somewhat with Dunsford,
that men are not agitated as they used to be by the great speculative
questions. I account for it in this way, that the material world
has opened out before us, and we cannot but look at that, and must play
with it and work at it. I would say, too, that philosophy had
been found out, and there is something in that. Still, I think
if it were not for the interest now attaching to material things, great
intellectual questions, not exactly of the old kind, would arise and
agitate the world.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. There is one thing in my mind that may confirm
your view. I cannot but think that the enlarged view we have of
the universe must in some measure damp personal ambition. What
is it to be a King, Sheik, Tetrarch, or Emperor, over a bit of a little
bit? Macbeth’s speech, “we’d jump the life to
come,” is a thing a man with modern lights, however madly ambitious,
would hardly utter.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Religious lights, Milverton.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Of course not, if he had them; but I meant
scientific lights. Sway over our fellow-creatures, at any rate
anything but mental sway, has shrunk into less proportions.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I have been looking over the essay.
I think you may put in somewhere - that that age would probably be the
greatest in which there was the least difference between great men and
the people in general - when the former were only neglected, not hunted
down.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. You are rather lengthy here about the cruelties
to be found in history; but we are apt to forget these matters.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. They always press upon my mind.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. And on mine. I do not like to read much
of history for that very reason. I get so sick at heart about
it all.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Ah, yes, history is a stupendous thing.
To read it is like looking at the stars; we turn away in awe and perplexity.
Yet there is some method running through the little affairs of man as
through the multitude of suns, seemingly to us as confused as routed
armies in full flight.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Some law of love.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I am afraid it is not in the past alone that
we should be awestruck with horrors: we, who have a slave-trade still
on earth. But, to go back to the essay, I like what you say about
the theory of constructing the Christian character without geniality;
only you do not go far enough. You are afraid. People are
for ever talking, especially you philanthropical people, about making
others happy. I do not know any way so sure of making others happy
as of being so oneself, to begin with. I do not mean that people
are to be self-absorbed; but they are to drink in nature and life a
little. From a genial, wisely-developed man good things radiate;
whereas you must allow, Milverton, that benevolent people are very apt
to be one-sided and fussy, and not of the sweetest temper if others
will not be good and happy in their way.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. That is really not fair. Of course,
acid, small-minded people carry their narrow notions and their acidity
into their benevolence. Benevolence is no abstract perfection.
Men will express their benevolence according to their other gifts or
want of gifts. If it is strong, it overcomes other things in the
character which would be hindrances to it; but it must speak in the
language of the soul it is in.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Come, let us go and see the pigs. I
hear them grunting over their dinners in the farmyard. I like
to see creatures who can be happy without a theory.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<h3>CHAPTER VI.</h3>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<p>The next time that I came over to Worth-Ashton it was raining, and
I found my friends in the study.</p>
<p>“Well, Dunsford,” said Ellesmere, “is it not comfortable
to have our sessions here for once, and to be looking out on a good
solid English wet day?”</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Rather a fluid than a solid. But I agree
with you in thinking it is very comfortable here.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I like to look upon the backs of books.
First I think how much of the owner’s inner life and character
is shown in his books; then perhaps I wonder how he got such a book
which seems so remote from all that I know of him - </p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I shall turn my books the wrong side upwards
when you come into the study.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. But what amuses me most is to see the odd
way in which books get together, especially in the library of a man
who reads his books and puts them up again wherever there is room.
Now here is a charming party: “A Treatise on the Steam-Engine”
between “Locke on Christianity” and Madame de Stael’s
“Corinne.” I wonder what they talk about at night
when we are all asleep. Here is another happy juxtaposition: old
Clarendon next to a modern metaphysician whom he would positively loathe.
Here is Sadler next to Malthus, and Horsley next to Priestley; but this
sort of thing happens most in the best regulated libraries. It
is a charming reflection for controversial writers, that their works
will be put together on the same shelves, often between the same covers;
and that, in the minds of educated men, the name of one writer will
be sure to recall the name of the other. So they go down to posterity
as a brotherhood.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. To complete Ellesmere’s theory, we
may say that all those injuries to books which we choose to throw upon
some wretched worm, are but the wounds from rival books.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Certainly. But now let us proceed to
polish up the weapons of another of these spiteful creatures.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Yes. What is to be our essay to-day,
Milverton?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Fiction.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Now, that is really unfortunate. Fiction
is just the subject to be discussed - no, not discussed, talked over
- out of doors on a hot day, all of us lying about in easy attitudes
on the grass, Dunsford with his gaiters forming a most picturesque and
prominent figure. But there is nothing complete in this life.
“Surgit amari aliquid:” and so we must listen to Fiction
in arm-chairs.</p>
<p>FICTION.</p>
<p>The influence of works of fiction is unbounded. Even the minds
of well-informed people are often more stored with characters from acknowledged
fiction than from history or biography, or the real life around them.
We dispute about these characters as if they were realities. Their
experience is our experience; we adopt their feelings, and imitate their
acts. And so there comes to be something traditional even in the
management of the passions. Shakespeare’s historical plays
were the only history to the Duke of Marlborough. Thousands of
Greeks acted under the influence of what Achilles or Ulysses did, in
Homer. The poet sings of the deeds that shall be. He imagines
the past; he forms the future.</p>
<p>Yet how surpassingly interesting is real life when we get an insight
into it. Occasionally a great genius lifts up the veil of history,
and we see men who once really were alive, who did not always live only
in history; or, amidst the dreary page of battles, levies, sieges, and
the sleep-inducing weavings and unweavings of political combination,
we come, ourselves, across some spoken or written words of the great
actors of the time, and are then fascinated by the life and reality
of these things. Could you have the life of any man really portrayed
to you, sun-drawn as it were, its hopes, its fears, its revolutions
of opinion in each day, its most anxious wishes attained, and then,
perhaps, crystallising into its blackest regrets - such a work would
go far to contain all histories, and be the greatest lesson of love,
humility, and tolerance, that men had ever read.</p>
<p>Now fiction does attempt something like the above. In history
we are cramped by impertinent facts that must, however, be set down;
by theories that must be answered; evidence that must be weighed; views
that must be taken. Our facts constantly break off just where
we should wish to examine them most closely. The writer of fiction
follows his characters into the recesses of their hearts. There
are no closed doors for him. His puppets have no secrets from
their master. He plagues you with no doubts, no half-views, no
criticism. Thus they thought, he tells you; thus they looked,
thus they acted. Then, with every opportunity for scenic arrangement
(for though his characters are confidential with him, he is only as
confidential with his reader as the interest of the story will allow),
it is not to be wondered at that the majority of readers should look
upon history as a task, but tales of fiction as a delight.</p>
<p>The greatest merit of fiction is the one so ably put forward by Sir
James Mackintosh, namely, that it creates and nourishes sympathy.
It extends this sympathy, too, in directions where, otherwise, we hardly
see when it would have come. But it may be objected that this
sympathy is indiscriminate, and that we are in danger of mixing up virtue
and vice, and blurring both, if we are led to sympathise with all manner
of wrong-doers. But, in the first place, virtue and vice are so
mixed in real life, that it is well to be somewhat prepared for that
fact; and, moreover, the sympathy is not wrongly directed. Who
has not felt intense sympathy for Macbeth? Yet could he be alive
again, with evil thoughts against “the gracious Duncan,”
and could he see into all that has been felt for him, would that be
an encouragement to murder? The intense pity of wise people for
the crimes of others, when rightly represented, is one of the strongest
antidotes against crime. We have taken the extreme case of sympathy
being directed towards bad men. How often has fiction made us
sympathise with obscure suffering and retiring greatness, with the world-despised,
and especially with those mixed characters in whom we might otherwise
see but one colour - with Shylock and with Hamlet, with Jeanie Deans
and with Claverhouse, with Sancho Panza as well as with Don Quixote.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>On the other hand, there is a danger of too much converse with fiction
leading us into dream-land, or rather into lubber-land. Of course
this “too much converse” implies large converse with inferior
writers. Such writers are too apt to make life as they would have
it for themselves. Sometimes, also, they must make it to suit
booksellers’ rules. Having such power over their puppets
they abuse it. They can kill these puppets, change their natures
suddenly, reward or punish them so easily, that it is no wonder they
are led to play fantastic tricks with them. Now, if a sedulous
reader of the works of such writers should form his notions of real
life from them, he would occasionally meet with rude shocks when he
encountered the realities of that life.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>For my own part, notwithstanding all the charms of life in swiftly-written
novels, I prefer real life. It is true that, in the former, everything
breaks off round, every little event tends to some great thing, everybody
one meets is to exercise some great influence for good or ill upon one’s
fate. I take it for granted one fancies oneself the hero.
Then all one’s fancy is paid in ready money, or at least one can
draw upon it at the end of the third volume. One leaps to remote
wealth and honour by hairbreadth chances; and one’s uncle in India
always dies opportunely. To be sure the thought occurs, that if
this novel life could be turned into real life, one might be the uncle
in India and not the hero of the tale. But that is a trifling
matter, for at any rate one should carry on with spirit somebody else’s
story. On the whole, however, as I said before, I prefer real
life, where nothing is tied up neatly, but all in odds and ends; where
the doctrine of compensation enters largely, where we are often most
blamed when we least deserve it, where there is no third volume to make
things straight, and where many an Augustus marries many a Belinda,
and, instead of being happy ever afterwards, finds that there is a growth
of trials and troubles for each successive period of man’s life.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>In considering the subject of fiction, the responsibility of the
writers thereof is a matter worth pointing out. We see clearly
enough that historians are to be limited by facts and probabilities;
but we are apt to make a large allowance for the fancies of writers
of fiction. We must remember, however, that fiction is not falsehood.
If a writer puts abstract virtues into book-clothing, and sends them
upon stilts into the world, he is a bad writer: if he classifies men,
and attributes all virtue to one class and all vice to another, he is
a false writer. Then, again, if his ideal is so poor, that he
fancies man’s welfare to consist in immediate happiness; if he
means to paint a great man and paints only a greedy one, he is a mischievous
writer and not the less so, although by lamplight and amongst a juvenile
audience, his coarse scene-painting should be thought very grand.
He may be true to his own fancy, but he is false to Nature. A
writer, of course, cannot get beyond his own ideal: but at least he
should see that he works up to it: and if it is a poor one, he had better
write histories of the utmost concentration of dulness, than amuse us
with unjust and untrue imaginings.</p>
<p> -----</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I am glad you have kept to the obvious things
about fiction. It would have been a great nuisance to have had
to follow you through intricate theories about what fiction consists
in, and what are its limits, and so on. Then we should have got
into questions touching the laws of representation generally, and then
into art, of which, between ourselves, you know very little.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Talking of representation, what do you two,
who have now seen something of the world, think about representative
government?</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Dunsford plumps down upon us sometimes with
awful questions: what do you think of all philosophy? or what is your
opinion of life in general? Could not you throw in a few small
questions of that kind, together with your representative one, and we
might try to answer them all at once. Dunsford is only laughing
at us, Milverton.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. No, I know what was in Dunsford’s mind
when he asked that question. He has had his doubts and misgivings,
when he has been reading a six nights’ debate (for the people
in the country I daresay do read those things), whether representative
government is the most complete device the human mind could suggest
for getting at wise rulers.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. It is a doubt which has crossed my mind.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. And mine; but the doubt, if it has ever been
more than mere petulance, has not had much practical weight with me.
Look how the business of the world is managed. There are a few
people who think out things, and a few who execute. The former
are not to be secured by any device. They are gifts. The
latter may be well chosen, have often been well chosen, under other
forms of government than the representative one. I believe that
the favourites of kings have been a superior race of men. Even
a fool does not choose a fool for a favourite. He knows better
than that: he must have something to lean against. But between
the thinkers and the doers (if, indeed, we ought to make such a distinction),
<i>what a number of useful links there are in a representative government</i>
on account of the much larger number of people admitted into some share
of government. What general cultivation must come from that, and
what security! Of course, everything has its wrong side; and from
this number of people let in there comes declamation and claptrap and
mob-service, which is much the same thing as courtiership was in other
times. But then, to make the comparison a fair one, you must take
the wrong side of any other form of government that has been devised.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Well, but so much power centring in the lower
house of Parliament, and the getting into Parliament being a thing which
is not very inviting to the kind of people one would most like to see
there, do you not think that the ablest men are kept away?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes; but if you make your governing body
a unit or a ten, or any small number, how is this power, unless it is
Argus-eyed, and myriad-minded, and right-minded too, to choose the right
men any better than they are found now? The great danger, as it
appears to me, of representative government is lest it should slide
down from representative government to delegate government. In
my opinion, the welfare of England, in great measure, depends upon what
takes place at the hustings. If, in the majority of instances,
there were abject conduct there, electors and elected would be alike
debased; upright public men could not be expected to arise from such
beginnings; and thoughtful persons would begin to consider whether some
other form of government could not forthwith be made out.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I have a supreme disgust for the man who
at the hustings has no opinion beyond or above the clamour round him.
How such a fellow would have kissed the ground before a Pompadour, or
waited for hours in a Buckingham’s antechamber, only to catch
the faintest beam of reflected light from royalty.</p>
<p>But I declare we have been just like schoolboys talking about forms
of government and so on.</p>
<p> “For forms of government let
fools contest,<br /> That which is
<i>worst</i> administered is best,” - </p>
<p>that is, representative government.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I should not like either of you to fancy,
from what I have been saying about representative government, that I
do not see the dangers and the evils of it. In fact, it is a frequent
thought with me of what importance the House of Lords is at present,
and of how much greater importance it might be made. If there
were Peers for life, and official members of the House of Commons, it
would, I think, meet most of your objections, Dunsford.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I suppose I am becoming a little rusty and
disposed to grumble, as I grow old; but there is a good deal in modern
government which seems to me very rude and absurd. There comes
a clamour, partly reasonable; power is deaf to it, overlooks it, says
there is no such thing; then great clamour; after a time, power welcomes
that, takes it to its arms, says that now it is loud it is very wise,
wishes it had always been clamour itself.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. How many acres do you farm, Dunsford?
How spiteful you are!</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I am not thinking of Corn Laws alone, as you
fancy, Master Ellesmere. But to go to other things. I quite
agree, Milverton, with what you were saying just now about the business
of the world being carried on by few, and the thinking few being in
the nature of gifts to the world, not elicited by King or Kaiser.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. The mill-streams that turn the clappers of
the world arise in solitary places.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Not a bad metaphor, but untrue. Aristotle,
Bacon - </p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Well, I believe it would be much wiser to
say, that we cannot lay down rules about the highest work; either when
it is done, where it will be done, or how it can be made to be done.
It is too immaterial for our measurement; for the highest part even
of the mere business of the world is in dealing with ideas. It
is very amusing to observe the misconceptions of men on these points.
They call for what is outward - can understand that, can praise it.
Fussiness and the forms of activity in all ages get great praise.
Imagine an active, bustling little prætor under Augustus, how
he probably pointed out Horace to his sons as a moony kind of man, whose
ways were much to be avoided, and told them it was a weakness in Augustus
to like such idle men about him instead of men of business.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Or fancy a bustling Glasgow merchant of Adam
Smith’s day watching him. How little would the merchant
have dreamt what a number of vessels were to be floated away by the
ink in the Professor’s inkstand; and what crashing of axes, and
clearing of forests in distant lands, the noise of his pen upon the
paper portended.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. It is not only the effect of the still-working
man that the busy man cannot anticipate, but neither can he comprehend
the present labour. If Horace had told my prætor that</p>
<p> “Abstinuit Venere et vino, sudavit
et alsit,”</p>
<p>“What, to write a few lines!” would his prætorship
have cried out. “Why, I can live well and enjoy life; and
I flatter myself no one in Rome does more business.”</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. All of it only goes to show how little we
know of each other, and how tolerant we ought to be of others’
efforts.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. The trials that there must be every day without
any incident that even the most minute household chronicler could set
down: the labours without show or noise!</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. The deep things that there are which, with
unthinking people, pass for shallow things, merely because they are
clear as well as deep. My fable of the other day, for instance
- which instead of producing any moral effect upon you two, only seemed
to make you both inclined to giggle.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I am so glad you reminded me of that.
I, too, fired with a noble emulation, have invented a fable since we
last met which I want you to hear. I assure you I did not mean
to laugh at yours: it was only that it came rather unexpectedly upon
me. You are not exactly the person from whom one should expect
fables.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Now for the fable.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. There was a gathering together of creatures
hurtful and terrible to man, to name their king. Blight, mildew,
darkness, mighty waves, fierce winds, Will-o’-the-wisps, and shadows
of grim objects, told fearfully their doings and preferred their claims,
none prevailing. But when evening came on, a thin mist curled
up, derisively, amidst the assemblage, and said, “I gather round
a man going to his own home over paths made by his daily footsteps;
and he becomes at once helpless and tame as a child. The lights
meant to assist him, then betray. You find him wandering, or need
the aid of other Terrors to subdue him. I am, alone, confusion
to him.” And all the assemblage bowed before the mist, and
made it king, and set it on the brow of many a mountain, where, when
it is not doing evil, it may be often seen to this day.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Well, I like that fable: only I am not quite
clear about the meaning.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. You had no doubt about mine.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Is the mist calumny, Milverton?</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. No, prejudice, I am sure.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Familiarity with the things around us, obscuring
knowledge?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I would rather not explain. Each of
you make your own fable of it.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Well, if ever I make a fable, it shall be
one of the old-fashioned sort, with animals for the speakers, and a
good easy moral.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Not a thing requiring the notes of seven
German metaphysicians. I must go and talk a little to my friends
the trees, and see if I can get any explanation from them. It
is turning out a beautiful day after all, notwithstanding my praise
of its solidity.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<h3>CHAPTER VII.</h3>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<p>We met as usual at our old spot on the lawn for our next reading.
I forget what took place before reading, except that Ellesmere was very
jocose about our reading “Fiction” in-doors, and the following
“November Essay,” as he called it, “under a jovial
sun, and with the power of getting up and walking away from each other
to any extent.”</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>ON THE ART OF LIVING WITH OTHERS.</p>
<p>The “Iliad” for war; the “Odyssey” for wandering;
but where is the great domestic epic? Yet it is but commonplace
to say, that passions may rage round a tea-table, which would not have
misbecome men dashing at one another in war-chariots; and evolutions
of patience and temper are performed at the fireside, worthy to be compared
with the Retreat of the Ten Thousand. Men have worshipped some
fantastic being for living alone in a wilderness; but social martyrdoms
place no saints upon the calendar.</p>
<p>We may blind ourselves to it if we like, but the hatreds and disgusts
that there are behind friendship, relationship, service, and, indeed,
proximity of all kinds, is one of the darkest spots upon earth.
The various relations of life, which bring people together, cannot,
as we know, be perfectly fulfilled except in a state where there will,
perhaps, be no occasion for any of them. It is no harm, however,
to endeavour to see whether there are any methods which may make these
relations in the least degree more harmonious now.</p>
<p>In the first place, if people are to live happily together, they
must not fancy, because they are thrown together now, that all their
lives have been exactly similar up to the present time, that they started
exactly alike, and that they are to be for the future of the same mind.
A thorough conviction of the difference of men is the great thing to
be assured of in social knowledge: it is to life what Newton’s
law is to astronomy. Sometimes men have a knowledge of it with
regard to the world in general: they do not expect the outer world to
agree with them in all points, but are vexed at not being able to drive
their own tastes and opinions into those they live with. Diversities
distress them. They will not see that there are many forms of
virtue and wisdom. Yet we might as well say, “Why all these
stars; why this difference; why not all one star?”</p>
<p>Many of the rules for people living together in peace follow from
the above. For instance, not to interfere unreasonably with others,
not to ridicule their tastes, not to question and re-question their
resolves, not to indulge in perpetual comment on their proceedings,
and to delight in their having other pursuits than ours, are all based
upon a thorough perception of the simple fact that they are not we.</p>
<p>Another rule for living happily with others is to avoid having stock
subjects of disputation. It mostly happens, when people live much
together, that they come to have certain set topics, around which, from
frequent dispute, there is such a growth of angry words, mortified vanity,
and the like, that the original subject of difference becomes a standing
subject for quarrel; and there is a tendency in all minor disputes to
drift down to it.</p>
<p>Again, if people wish to live well together, they must not hold too
much to logic, and suppose that everything is to be settled by sufficient
reason. Dr. Johnson saw this clearly with regard to married people,
when he said, “Wretched would be the pair above all names of wretchedness,
who should be doomed to adjust by reason every morning all the minute
detail of a domestic day.” But the application should be
much more general than he made it. There is no time for such reasonings,
and nothing that is worth them. And when we recollect how two
lawyers, or two politicians, can go on contending, and that there is
no end of one-sided reasoning on any subject, we shall not be sure that
such contention is the best mode for arriving at truth. But certainly
it is not the way to arrive at good temper.</p>
<p>If you would be loved as a companion, avoid unnecessary criticism
upon those with whom you live. The number of people who have taken
out judges’ patents for themselves is very large in any society.
Now it would be hard for a man to live with another who was always criticising
his actions, even if it were kindly and just criticism. It would
be like living between the glasses of a microscope. But these
self-elected judges, like their prototypes, are very apt to have the
persons they judge brought before them in the guise of culprits.</p>
<p>One of the most provoking forms of the criticism above alluded to
is that which may be called criticism over the shoulder. “Had
I been consulted,” “Had you listened to me,” “But
you always will,” and such short scraps of sentences may remind
many of us of dissertations which we have suffered and inflicted, and
of which we cannot call to mind any soothing effect.</p>
<p>Another rule is, not to let familiarity swallow up all courtesy.
Many of us have a habit of saying to those with whom we live such things
as we say about strangers behind their backs. There is no place,
however, where real politeness is of more value than where we mostly
think it would be superfluous. You may say more truth, or rather
speak out more plainly, to your associates, but not less courteously
than you do to strangers.</p>
<p>Again, we must not expect more from the society of our friends and
companions than it can give, and especially must not expect contrary
things. It is something arrogant to talk of travelling over other
minds (mind being, for what we know, infinite); but still we become
familiar with the upper views, tastes, and tempers of our associates.
And it is hardly in man to estimate justly what is familiar to him.
In travelling along at night, as Hazlitt says, we catch a glimpse into
cheerful-looking rooms with light blazing in them, and we conclude involuntarily
how happy the inmates must be. Yet there is heaven and hell in
those rooms - the same heaven and hell that we have known in others.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>There are two great classes of promoters of social happiness - cheerful
people, and people who have some reticence. The latter are more
secure benefits to society even than the former. They are non-conductors
of all the heats and animosities around them. To have peace in
a house, or a family, or any social circle, the members of it must beware
of passing on hasty and uncharitable speeches, which, the whole of the
context seldom being told, is often not conveying but creating mischief.
They must be very good people to avoid doing this; for let Human Nature
say what it will, it likes sometimes to look on at a quarrel, and that
not altogether from ill-nature, but from a love of excitement, for the
same reason that Charles II. liked to attend the debates in the Lords,
because they were “as good as a play.”</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>We come now to the consideration of temper, which might have been
expected to be treated first. But to cut off the means and causes
of bad temper is, perhaps, of as much importance as any direct dealing
with the temper itself. Besides, it is probable that in small
social circles there is more suffering from unkindness than ill-temper.
Anger is a thing that those who live under us suffer more from than
those who live with us. But all the forms of ill-humour and sour-sensitiveness,
which especially belong to equal intimacy (though indeed, they are common
to all), are best to be met by impassiveness. When two sensitive
persons are shut up together, they go on vexing each other with a reproductive
irritability. <a name="citation93"></a><a href="#footnote93">{93}</a>
But sensitive and hard people get on well together. The supply
of temper is not altogether out of the usual laws of supply and demand.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Intimate friends and relations should be careful when they go out
into the world together, or admit others to their own circle, that they
do not make a bad use of the knowledge which they have gained of each
other by their intimacy. Nothing is more common than this, and
did it not mostly proceed from mere carelessness, it would be superlatively
ungenerous. You seldom need wait for the written life of a man
to hear about his weaknesses, or what are supposed to be such, if you
know his intimate friends, or meet him in company with them.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Lastly, in conciliating those we live with, it is most surely done,
not by consulting their interests, nor by giving way to their opinions,
so much as by not offending their tastes. The most refined part
of us lies in this region of taste, which is perhaps a result of our
whole being rather than a part of our nature, and, at any rate, is the
region of our most subtle sympathies and antipathies.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>It may be said that if the great principles of Christianity were
attended to, all such rules, suggestions, and observations as the above
would be needless. True enough! Great principles are at
the bottom of all things; but to apply them to daily life, many little
rules, precautions, and insights are needed. Such things hold
a middle place between real life and principles, as form does between
matter and spirit, moulding the one and expressing the other.</p>
<p> -----</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Quite right that last part. Everybody
must have known really good people, with all Christian temper, but having
so little Christian prudence as to do a great deal of mischief in society.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. There is one case, my dear Milverton, which
I do not think you have considered: the case where people live unhappily
together, not from any bad relations between them, but because they
do not agree about the treatment of others. A just person, for
instance, who would bear anything for himself or herself, must remonstrate,
at the hazard of any disagreement, at injustice to others.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes. That, however, is a case to be
decided upon higher considerations than those I have been treating of.
A man must do his duty in the way of preventing injustice, and take
what comes of it.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. For people to live happily together, the
real secret is that they should not live too much together. Of
course, you cannot say that; it would sound harsh, and cut short the
essay altogether.</p>
<p>Again, you talk about tastes and “region of subtle sympathies,”
and all that. I have observed that if people’s vanity is
pleased, they live well enough together. Offended vanity is the
great separator. You hear a man (call him B) saying that he is
really not himself before So-and-so; tell him that So-and-so admires
him very much and is himself rather abashed before B, and B is straightway
comfortable, and they get on harmoniously together, and you hear no
more about subtle sympathies or antipathies.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. What a low view you do take of things sometimes,
Ellesmere!</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I should not care how low it was, but it
is not fair - at least, it does not contain the whole matter.
In the very case he has put, there was a subtle embarrassment between
B and So-and-so. Well, now, let these people not merely meet occasionally,
but be obliged to live together, without any such explanation as Ellesmere
has imagined, and they will be very uncomfortable from causes that you
cannot impute to vanity. It takes away much of the savour of life
to live amongst those with whom one has not anything like one’s
fair value. It may not be mortified vanity, but unsatisfied sympathy,
which causes this discomfort. B thinks that the other does not
know him; he feels that he has no place with the other. When there
is intense admiration on one side, there is hardly a care in the mind
of the admiring one as to what estimation he is held in. But,
in ordinary cases, some clearly defined respect and acknowledgment of
worth is needed on both sides. See how happy a man is in any office
or service who is acknowledged to do something well. How comfortable
he is with his superiors! He has his place. It is not exactly
a satisfaction of his vanity, but an acknowledgment of his useful existence
that contents him. I do not mean to say that there are not innumerable
claims for acknowledgment of merit and service made by rampant vanity
and egotism, which claims cannot be satisfied, ought not to be satisfied,
and which, being unsatisfied, embitter people. But I think your
word Vanity will not explain all the feelings we have been talking about.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Perhaps not.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Certainly not.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well, at any rate, you will admit that there
is a class of dreadfully humble people who make immense claims at the
very time that they are explaining that they have no claims. They
say they know they cannot be esteemed; they are well aware that they
are not wanted, and so on, all the while making it a sort of grievance
and a claim that they are not what they know themselves not to be; whereas,
if they did but fall back upon their humility, and keep themselves quiet
about their demerits, they would be strong then, and in their place
and happy, doing what they could.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. It must be confessed that these people do
make their humility somewhat obnoxious. Yet, after all, you allow
that they know their deficiencies, and they only say, “I know
I have not much to recommend me, but I wish to be loved, nevertheless.”</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Ah, if they only said it a few times!
Besides, there is a little envy mixed up with the humility that I mean.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Travelling is a great trial of people’s
ability to live together.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Yes. Lavater says that you do not know
a man until you have divided an inheritance with him; but I think a
long journey with him will do.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Well, and what is it in travelling that makes
people disagree? Not direct selfishness, but injudicious management;
stupid regrets, for instance, at things not being different from what
they are, or from what they might have been, if “the other route”
had been chosen; fellow-travellers punishing each other with each other’s
tastes; getting stock subjects of disputation; laughing unseasonably
at each other’s vexations and discomforts; and endeavouring to
settle everything by the force of sufficient reason, instead of by some
authorised will, or by tossing up. Thus, in the short time of
a journey, almost all modes and causes of human disagreement are brought
into action.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. My favourite one not being the least - over-much
of each other’s company.</p>
<p>For my part, I think one of the greatest bores of companionship is,
not merely that people wish to fit tastes and notions on you just as
they might the first pair of ready-made shoes they meet with, a process
amusing enough to the bystander, but exquisitely uncomfortable to the
person being ready-shod: but that they bore you with never-ending talk
about their pursuits, even when they know that you do not work in the
same groove with them, and that they cannot hope to make you do so.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Nobody can accuse you of that fault, Ellesmere:
I never heard you dilate much upon anything that interested you, though
I have known you have some pet subject, and to be working at it for
months. But this comes of your coldness of nature.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well, it might bear a more favourable construction.
But to go back to the essay. It only contemplates the fact of
people living together as equals, if we may so say; but in general,
of course, you must add some other relationship or connection than that
of merely being together.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I had not overlooked that; but there are
certain general rules in the matter that may be applied to nearly all
relationship, just as I have taken that one from Johnson, applied by
him to married life, about not endeavouring to settle all things by
reasoning, and have given it a general application which, I believe,
it will bear.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. There is one thing that I should think must
often make women very unreasonable and unpleasant companions.
Oh, you may both hold up your hands and eyes, but I am not married,
and can say what I please. Of course you put on the proper official
look of astonishment; and I will duly report it. But I was going
to say that Chivalry, which has doubtless done a great deal of good,
has also done a great deal of harm. Women may talk the greatest
unreason out of doors, and nobody kindly informs them that it is unreason.
They do not talk much before clever men, and when they do, their words
are humoured and dandled as children’s sayings are. Now,
I should fancy - mind, I do not want either of you to say that my fancy
is otherwise than quite unreasonable - I should fancy that when women
have to hear reason at home it must sound odd to them. The truth
is, you know, we cannot pet anything much without doing it mischief.
You cannot pet the intellect, any more than the will, without injuring
it. Well then, again, if you put people upon a pedestal and do
a great deal of worship around them, I cannot think but the will in
such cases must become rather corrupted, and that lessons of obedience
must fall rather harshly - </p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Why, you Mahometan, you Turk of a lawyer -
would you do away with all the high things of courtesy, tenderness for
the weaker, and - </p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. No, I see what he means; and there is something
in it. Many a woman is brought up in unreason and self-will from
these causes that he has given, as many a man from other causes; but
there is one great corrective that he has omitted, and which is, that
all forms, fashions, and outward things have a tendency to go down before
realities when they come hand to hand together. Knowledge and
judgment prevail. Governing is apt to fall to the right person
in private as in public affairs.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Those who give way in public affairs, and
let the men who can do a thing do it, are so far wise that they know
what is to be done, mostly. But the very things I am arguing against
are the unreason and self-will, which being constantly pampered, do
not appreciate reason or just sway. Besides, is there not a force
in ill-humour and unreason to which you constantly see the wisest bend?
You will come round to my opinion some day. I do not want, though,
to convince you. It is no business of mine.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Well, I may be wrong, but I think, when we
come to consider education, I can show you how the dangers you fear
may be greatly obviated, without Chivalry being obliged to put on a
wig and gown, and be wise.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Meanwhile, let us enjoy the delightful atmosphere
of courtesy, unreasonable sometimes, if you like, which saves many people
being put down with the best arguments in the most convincing manner,
or being weighed, estimated, and given way to, so as not to spoil them.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Do not tell, either of you, what I have been
saying. I shall always be poked up into some garret when I come
to see you, if you do.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I think the most curious thing, as regards
people living together, is the intense ignorance they sometimes are
in of each other. Many years ago, one or other of you said something
of this kind to me, and I have often thought of it since.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. People fulfil a relation towards each other,
and they only know each other in that relation, especially if it is
badly managed by the superior one; but any way the relationship involves
some ignorance. They perform orbits round each other, each gyrating,
too, upon his own axis, and there are parts of the character of each
which are never brought into view of the other.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I should carry this notion of yours, Milverton,
farther than you do. There is a peculiar mental relation soon
constituted between associates of any kind, which confines and prevents
complete knowledge on both sides. Each man, in some measure therefore,
knows others only through himself. Tennyson makes Ulysses say,</p>
<p> “I am a part of all that I have
seen;”</p>
<p>it might have run,</p>
<p> “I am a part of all that I have
heard.”</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Ellesmere becoming metaphysical and transcendental!</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well, well, we will leave these heights,
and descend in little drops of criticism. There are two or three
things you might have pointed out, Milverton. Perhaps you would
say that they are included in what you have said, but I think not.
You talk of the mischief of much comment on each other amongst those
who live together. You might have shown, I think, that in the
case of near friends and relations this comment also deepens into interference
- at least it partakes of that nature. Friends and relations should,
therefore, be especially careful to avoid needless comments on each
other. They do just the contrary. That is one of the reasons
why they often hate one another so much.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Ellesmere!</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Protest, if you like, my dear Dunsford.<br /> Dissentient,<br /> 1.
Because I wish it were not so.<br /> 2.
Because I am sorry that it is.<br /> (Signed)
DUNSFORD.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. “Hate” is too strong a word,
Ellesmere; what you say would be true enough, if you would put “are
not in sympathy with.”</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. “Have a quiet distaste for.”
That is the proper medium. Now, to go to another matter.
You have not put the case of over-managing people, who are tremendous
to live with.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I have spoken about “interfering unreasonably
with others.”</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. That does not quite convey what I mean.
It is when the manager and the managee are both of the same mind as
to the thing to be done; but the former insists, and instructs, and
suggests, and foresees, till the other feels that all free agency for
him is gone.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. It is a sad thing to consider how much of
their abilities people turn to tiresomeness. You see a man who
would be very agreeable if he were not so observant: another who would
be charming, if he were deaf and dumb: a third delightful, if he did
not vex all around him with superfluous criticism.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. A hit at me that last, I suspect. But
I shall go on. You have not, I think, made enough merit of independence
in companionship. If I were to put into an aphorism what I mean,
I should say, Those who depend wholly on companionship are the worst
companions; or thus: Those deserve companionship who can do without
it. There, Mr. Aphoriser General, what do you say to that?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Very good, but - </p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Of course a “but” to other people’s
aphorisms, as if every aphorism had not buts innumerable. We critics,
you know, cannot abide criticism. We do all the criticism that
is needed ourselves. I wonder at the presumption sometimes of
you wretched authors. But to proceed. You have not said
anything about the mischief of superfluous condolence amongst people
who live together. I flatter myself that I could condole anybody
out of all peace of mind.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. All depends upon whether condolence goes
with the grain, or against the grain, of vanity. I know what you
mean, however: For instance, it is a very absurd thing to fret much
over other people’s courses, not considering the knowledge and
discipline that there is in any course that a man may take. And
it is still more absurd to be constantly showing the people fretted
over that you are fretting over them. I think a good deal of what
you call superfluous condolence would come under the head of superfluous
criticism.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Not altogether. In companionship, when
an evil happens to one of the circle, the others should simply attempt
to share and lighten it, not to expound it, or dilate on it, or make
it the least darker. The person afflicted generally apprehends
all the blackness sufficiently. Now, unjust abuse by the world
is to me like the howling of the wind at night when one is warm within.
Bring any draught of it into one’s house though, and it is not
so pleasant.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Talking of companionship, do not you think
there is often a peculiar feeling of home where age or infirmity is?
The arm-chair of the sick or the old is the centre of the house.
They think, perhaps, that they are unimportant; but all the household
hopes and cares flow to them and from them.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I quite agree with you. What you have
just depicted is a beautiful sight, especially when, as you often see,
the age or infirmity is not in the least selfish or exacting.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. We have said a great deal about the companionship
of human beings; but, upon my word, we ought to have kept a few words
for our dog friends. Rollo has been lolling out his great tongue,
and looking wistfully from face to face, as we each began our talk.
A few minutes ago he was quite concerned, thinking I was angry with
you, when I would not let you “but” my aphorism. I
am not sure which of the three I should rather go out walking with now:
Dunsford, Rollo, Milverton. The middle one is the safest companion.
I am sure not to get out of humour with him. But I have no objection
to try the whole three: only I vote for much continuity of silence,
as we have had floods of discussion to-day.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Agreed!</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Come, Rollo, you may bark now, as you have
been silent, like a wise dog, all the morning.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<h3>CHAPTER VIII.</h3>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<p>It was arranged, during our walk, that Ellesmere should come and
stay a day or two with me, and see the neighbouring cathedral, which
is nearer my house than Milverton’s. The visit over, I brought
him back to Worth-Ashton. Milverton saw us coming, walked down
the hill to meet us, and after the usual greetings, began to talk to
Ellesmere.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. So you have been to see our cathedral.
I say “our,” for when a cathedral is within ten miles of
us, we feel a property in it, and are ready to battle for its architectural
merits.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. You know I am not a man to rave about cathedrals.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I certainly do not expect you to do so.
To me a cathedral is mostly somewhat of a sad sight. You have
Grecian monuments, if anything so misplaced can be called Grecian, imbedded
against and cutting into Gothic pillars; the doors shut for the greater
part of the day; only a little bit of the building used: beadledom predominant;
the clink of money here and there; white-wash in vigour; the singing
indifferent; the sermons not indifferent but bad; and some visitors
from London forming, perhaps, the most important part of the audience;
in fact, the thing having become a show. We look about, thinking
when piety filled every corner, and feel that the cathedral is too big
for the Religion which is a dried-up thing that rattles in this empty
space.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. This is the boldest simile I have heard for
a long time. My theory about cathedrals is very different, I must
confess.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Theory!</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well, “theory” is not the word
I ought to have used - feeling then. My feeling is, how strong
this creature was, this worship, how beautiful, how alluring, how complete;
but there was something stronger - truth.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. And more beautiful?</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Yes, and far more beautiful.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Doubtless, to the free spirits who brought
truth forward.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. You are only saying this, Milverton, to try
what I will say; but, despite of all sentimentalities, you sympathise
with any emancipation of the human mind, as I do, however much the meagreness
of Protestantism may be at times distasteful to you.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I did not say I was anxious to go back.
Certainly not. But what says Dunsford? Let us sit down on
his stile and hear what he has to say.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I cannot talk to you about this subject.
If I tell you of all the merits (as they seem to me) of the Church of
England, you will both pick what I say to pieces, whereas if I leave
you to fight on, one or the other will avail himself of those arguments
on which our Church is based.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Well, Dunsford, you are very candid, and
would make a complete diplomatist: truth-telling being now pronounced
(rather late in the day) the very acme of diplomacy. But do you
not own that our cathedrals are sadly misused?</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Now, very likely, if more were made of them,
you, and men who think like you, would begin to cry out “superstition”;
and would instantly turn round and inveigh against the uses which you
now, perhaps, imagine for cathedrals.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Well, one never can answer for oneself; but
at any rate, I do not see what is the meaning of building new churches
in neighbourhoods where there are already the noblest buildings suitable
for the same purposes. Is there a church religion, and is there
a cathedral religion?</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. You cannot make the present fill the garb
of the past, Milverton, any more than you could make the past fill that
of the present. Now, as regards the very thing you are about to
discuss to-day, if it be the same you told us in our last walk - Education:
if you are only going to give us some institution for it, I daresay
it may be very good for to-day, or for this generation, but it will
have its sere and yellow leaf, and there will be a time when future
Milvertons, in sentimental mood, will moan over it, and wish they had
it and all that has grown up to take its place at the same time.
But all this is what I have often heard you say yourself in other words.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. This is very hard doctrine, and not quite
sound, I think. In getting the new gain, we always sacrifice something,
and we should look with some pious regard to what was good in the things
which are past. That good is generally one which, though it may
not be equal to the present, would make a most valuable supplement to
it.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I would try and work in the old good thing
with the new, not as patchwork though, but making the new thing grow
out in such a way as to embrace the old advantage.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well, we must have the essay before we branch
out into our philosophy. Pleasure afterwards - I will not say
what comes first.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>EDUCATION.</p>
<p>The word education is so large, that one may almost as well put “world,”
or “the end and object of being,” at the head of an essay.
It should, therefore, soon be declared what such a heading does mean.
The word education suggests chiefly to some minds what the State can
do for those whom they consider its young people - the children of the
poorer classes: to others it presents the idea of all the training that
can be got for money at schools and colleges, and which can be fairly
accomplished and shut in at the age of one-and-twenty. This essay,
however, will not be a treatise on government education, or other school
and college education, but will only contain a few points in reference
to the general subject, which may escape more methodical and enlarged
discussions.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>In the first place, as regards government education, it must be kept
in mind that there is a danger of its being too interfering and formal,
of its overlying private enterprise, insisting upon too much uniformity,
and injuring local connections and regards. Education, even in
the poorest acceptance of the word, is a great thing: but the harmonious
intercourse of different ranks, if not a greater, is a more difficult
one; and we must not gain the former at any considerable sacrifice of
the latter.</p>
<p>There is another point connected with this branch of the subject
which requires, perhaps, to be noted. If government provision
is made in any case, might it not be combined with private payment in
other cases, or enter in the way of rewards, so as to do good throughout
each step of the social ladder? The lowest kind of school education
is a power, and it is desirable that the gradations of this power should
correspond to other influences which we know to be good. For instance,
a hard-working man saves something to educate his children; if he can
get a little better education for them than other parents of his own
rank for theirs, it is an incentive and a reward to him, and the child’s
bringing up at home is a thing which will correspond to this better
education at school. In this there are the elements at once of
stability and progress.</p>
<p>These views may possibly seem too refined, but at any rate they require
consideration.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>The next branch of the subject is the ordinary education of young
persons not of the poorest classes, with which the State has hitherto
had little or nothing to do. This may be considered under four
heads: religious, moral, intellectual, and physical education.
With regard to the first, there is not much that can be put into rules
about it. Parents and tutors will naturally be anxious to impress
those under their charge with the religious opinions which they themselves
hold. In doing this, however, they should not omit to lay a foundation
for charity towards people of other religious opinions. For this
purpose, it may be requisite to give a child a notion that there are
other creeds besides that in which it is brought up itself. And
especially, let it not suppose that all good and wise people are of
its church or chapel. However desirable it may appear to the person
teaching that there should be such a thing as unity of religion, yet
as the facts of the world are against his wishes, and as this is the
world which the child is to enter, it is well that the child should
in reasonable time be informed of these facts. It may be said
in reply that history sufficiently informs children on these points.
But the world of the young is the domestic circle; all beyond is fabulous,
unless brought home to them by comment. The fact, therefore, of
different opinions in religious matters being held by good people should
sometimes be dwelt upon, instead of being shunned, if we would secure
a ground-work of tolerance in a child’s mind.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>INTELLECTUAL EDUCATION.</p>
<p>In the intellectual part of education there is the absolute knowledge
to be acquired, and the ways of acquiring knowledge to be gained.
The latter of course form the most important branch. They can,
in some measure, be taught. Give children little to do, make much
of its being accurately done. This will give accuracy. Insist
upon speed in learning, with careful reference to the original powers
of the pupil. This speed gives the habit of concentrating attention,
one of the most valuable of mental habits. Then cultivate logic.
Logic is not the hard matter that is fancied. A young person,
especially after a little geometrical training, may soon be taught to
perceive where a fallacy exists, and whether an argument is well sustained.
It is not, however, sufficient for him to be able to examine sharply
and to pull to pieces. He must learn how to build. This
is done by method. The higher branches of method cannot be taught
at first. But you may begin by teaching orderliness of mind.
Collecting, classifying, contrasting and weighing facts, are some of
the processes by which method is taught. When these four things,
accuracy, attention, logic, and method are attained, the intellect is
fairly furnished with its instruments.</p>
<p>As regards the things to be taught, they will vary to some extent
in each age. The general course of education pursued at any particular
time may not be the wisest by any means, and greatness will overleap
it and neglect it, but the mass of men may go more safely and comfortably,
if not with the stream, at least by the side of it.</p>
<p>In the choice of studies too much deference should not be paid to
the bent of a young person’s mind. Excellence in one or
two things which may have taken the fancy of a youth (or which really
may suit his genius) will ill compensate for a complete ignorance of
those branches of study which are very repugnant to him; and which are,
therefore, not likely to be learnt when he has freedom in the choice
of his studies.</p>
<p>Amongst the first things to be aimed at in the intellectual part
of education is variety of pursuit. A human being, like a tree,
if it is to attain to perfect symmetry, must have light and air given
to it from all quarters. This may be done without making men superficial.
Scientific method may be acquired without many sciences being learnt.
But one or two great branches of science must be accurately known.
So, too, the choice works of antiquity may be thoroughly appreciated
without extensive reacting. And passing on from mere learning
of any kind, a variety of pursuits, even in what may be called accomplishments,
is eminently serviceable. Much may be said of the advantage of
keeping a man to a few pursuits, and of the great things done thereby
in the making of pins and needles. But in this matter we are not
thinking of the things that are to be done, but of the persons who are
to do them. Not wealth but men. A number of one-sided men
may make a great nation, though I much incline to doubt that; but such
a nation will not contain a number of great men.</p>
<p>The very advantage that flows from division of labour, and the probable
consequences that men’s future bread-getting pursuits will be
more and more sub-divided, and therefore limited, make it the more necessary
that a man should begin life with a broad basis of interest in many
things which may cultivate his faculties and develop his nature.
This multifariousness of pursuit is needed also in the education of
the poor. Civilisation has made it easy for a man to brutalise
himself: how is this to be counteracted but by endowing him with many
pursuits which may distract him from vice? It is not that kind
of education which leads to no employment in after-life that will do
battle with vice. But when education enlarges the field of life-long
good pursuits, it becomes formidable to the soul’s worst enemies.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>MORAL EDUCATION.</p>
<p>In considering moral education we must recollect that there are three
agents in this matter - the child himself, the influence of his grown-up
friends, and that of his contemporaries. All that his grown-up
friends tell him in the way of experience goes for very little, except
in palpable matters. They talk of abstractions which he cannot
comprehend: and the “Arabian Nights” is a truer world to
him than that they talk of. Still, though they cannot furnish
experience, they can give motives. Indeed, in their daily intercourse
with the child, they are always doing so. For instance, truth,
courage, and kindness are the great moral qualities to be instilled.
Take courage, in its highest form - moral courage. If a child
perpetually hears such phrases (and especially if they are applied to
his own conduct), as, “What people will say,” “How
they will look at you,” “What they will think,” and
the like, it tends to destroy all just self-reliance in that child’s
mind, and to set up instead an exaggerated notion of public opinion,
the greatest tyrant of these times. People can see this in such
an obvious thing as animal courage. They will avoid over-cautioning
children against physical dangers, knowing that the danger they talk
much about will become a bug-bear to the child which it may never get
rid of. But a similar peril lurks in the application of moral
motives. Truth, courage, and kindness are likely to be learnt,
or not, by children, according as they hear and receive encouragement
in the direction of these pre-eminent qualities. When attempt
is made to frighten a child with these worldly maxims, “What will
be said of you?” “Are you like such a one?” and such
things, it is meant to draw him under the rule of grown-up respectability.
The last thing thought of by the parent or teacher is, that such maxims
will bring the child under the especial guidance of the most unscrupulous
of his contemporaries. They will use ridicule and appeal to their
little world, which will be his world, and ask, “What will be
said” of him. There should be some stuff in him of his own
to meet these awful generalities.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>PHYSICAL EDUCATION.</p>
<p>The physical education of children is a very simple matter, too simple
to be much attended to without great perseverance and resolution on
the part of those who care for the children. It consists, as we
all know, in good air, simple diet, sufficient exercise, and judicious
clothing. The first requisite is the most important, and by far
the most frequently neglected. This neglect is not so unreasonable
as it seems. It arises from pure ignorance. If the mass
of mankind knew what scientific men know about the functions of the
air, they would be as careful in getting a good supply of it as of their
other food. All the people that ever were supposed to die of poison
in the middle ages, and that means nearly everybody whose death was
worth speculating about, are not so many as those who die poisoned by
bad air in the course of any given year. Even a slightly noxious
thing, which is constant, affecting us every moment of the day, must
have considerable influence; but the air we breathe is not a thing that
slightly affects us, but one of the most important elements of life.
Moreover, children are the most affected by impurity of air. We
need not weary ourselves with much statistics to ascertain this.
One or two broad facts will assure us of it. In Nottingham there
is a district called Byron Ward, “the densest and worst-conditioned
quarter of the town.” A table has been made by Mr. William
Hawksley of the mortality of equal populations in different parts of
the town:</p>
<p>“On comparing the diagram No. 1, relating to Park Ward, with
the diagram No. 7, relating to Byron Ward, it will be seen that the
heavier pressure of the causes of mortality occasions in the latter
district such an undue destruction of early life, that towards 100 deaths,
however occurring, Byron Ward contributes fifty per cent. more of children
under five years of age than the Park Ward, for the former sends sixty
children to an early grave, while the latter sends only forty.”
<a name="citation116a"></a><a href="#footnote116a">{116a}</a></p>
<p>Mr. Hawksley, the former witness alluded to, goes on to say - </p>
<p>“It has been long known that, with increase of years, up to
that period of life which has been denominated the second childhood,
the human constitution becomes gradually more resistful, and as it were
slowly hardened against the repeated attacks of those more acute disorders,
incident to an inferior degree of sanitary civilisation, by which large
portions of an infant population are continually overcome and rapidly
swept away. From the operation of these and more extraneous influences
of a disturbing character, an infant population is almost entirely exempted;
and on this account it is considered that an infant population constitutes,
as it were, a delicate barometer, from which we may derive more early
and more certain indications of the presence and comparative force of
local causes of mortality and disease than can be obtained from the
more general methods of investigation usually pursued.”</p>
<p>The above evidence is confirmed by Mr. Toynbee: - </p>
<p>“The disease of hydrocephalus, of water in the brain, so fatal
to children, I find associated with symptoms of scrofula, and arising
in abundance in these close rooms. I believe water in the brain,
in the class of patients whom I visit, to be almost wholly a scrofulous
affection.” <a name="citation116b"></a><a href="#footnote116b">{116b}</a></p>
<p>But supposing people aware of the necessity for good air, and therefore
for ventilation, what is to be done? In houses in great towns
certainly, and I should say in all houses, some of the care and expense
that are devoted to ornamental work, which when done is often a care,
a trouble, an eyesore, and a mischief, should be given to modes of ventilation,
<a name="citation117a"></a><a href="#footnote117a">{117a}</a> sound
building, abundant access of light, largeness of sleeping-rooms, and
such useful things. Less ormolu and tinsel of all kinds in the
drawing-rooms, and sweeter air in the regions above. Similar things
may be done for and by the poor. <a name="citation117b"></a><a href="#footnote117b">{117b}</a>
And it need hardly be said that those people who care for their children,
if of any enlightenment at all, will care greatly for the sanitary condition
of their neighbourhood generally. At present you will find at
many a rich man’s door <a name="citation117c"></a><a href="#footnote117c">{117c}</a>
a nuisance which is poisoning the atmosphere that his children are to
breathe, but which he could entirely cure for less than one day’s
ordinary expenses.</p>
<p>I am afraid that ventilation is very little attended to in school-rooms,
either for rich or poor. Now it may be deliberately said that
there is very little learned in any school-room that can compensate
for the mischief of its being learned in the midst of impure air.
This is a thing which parents must look to, for the grown-up people
in the school-rooms, though suffering grievously themselves from insufficient
ventilation, will be unobservant of it. <a name="citation118"></a><a href="#footnote118">{118}</a>
In every system of government inspection, ventilation must occupy a
prominent part.</p>
<p>The advantage of simple food for children is a thing that people
have found out. And as regards exercise, children happily make
great efforts to provide a sufficiency of this for themselves.
In clothing, the folly and conformity of grown-up people enter again.
Loving mothers, in various parts of the world, carry about at present,
I believe, and certainly in times past, carried their little children
strapped to a board, with nearly as little power of motion as the board
itself. Could we get the returns of stunted miserable beings,
or of deaths, from this cause, they would be something portentous.
Less in degree, but not less fatally absurd in principle, are many of
the strappings, bandages, and incipient stays for children amongst us.
They are all mischievous. Allow children, at any rate, some freedom
of limbs, some opportunity of being graceful and healthy. Give
Nature - dear motherly, much-abused Nature - some chance of forming
these little ones according to the beneficent intentions of Providence,
and not according to the angular designs of ill-educated men and women.</p>
<p>I do not say that attention to the above matters of good air, judicious
clothing, and freedom from bandages, will absolutely secure health,
because these very things may have been so ill attended to in the parents
or in the parental stock as to have introduced special maladies; but
at least they are the most important objects to be minded now; and,
perhaps, the more to be minded in the children of those who have suffered
most from neglect in these particulars.</p>
<p>When we are considering the health of children, it is imperative
not to omit the importance of keeping their brains fallow, as it were,
for several of the first years of their existence. The mischief
perpetrated by a contrary course in the shape of bad health, peevish
temper, and developed vanity, is incalculable. It would not be
just to attribute this altogether to the vanity of parents; they are
influenced by a natural fear lest their children should not have all
the advantages of other children. Some infant prodigy which is
a standard of mischief throughout its neighbourhood misleads them.
But parents may be assured that this early work is not by any means
all gain, even in the way of work. I suspect it is a loss; and
that children who begin their education late, as it would be called,
will rapidly overtake those who have been in harness long before them.
And what advantage can it be that the child knows more at six years
old than its compeers, especially if this is to be gained by a sacrifice
of health which may never be regained? There may be some excuse
for this early book-work in the case of those children who are to live
by manual labour. It is worth while, perhaps, to run the risk
of some physical injury to them, having only their early years in which
we can teach them book-knowledge. The chance of mischief, too,
will be less, being more likely to be counteracted by their after-life.
But for a child who has to be at book-work for the first twenty-one
years of its life, what folly it is to exhaust in the least the mental
energy, which, after all, is its surest implement.</p>
<p>A similar course of argument applies to taking children early to
church, and to over-developing their minds in any way. There is
no knowing, moreover, the disgust and weariness that may grow up in
the minds of young persons from their attention being prematurely claimed.
We are now, however, looking at early study as a matter of health; and
we may certainly put it down in the same class with impure air, stimulating
diet, unnecessary bandages, and other manifest physical disadvantages.
Civilised life, as it advances, does not seem to have so much repose
in it, that we need begin early in exciting the mind, for fear of the
man being too lethargical hereafter.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>EDUCATION OF WOMEN.</p>
<p>It seems needful that something should be said specially about the
education of women. As regards their intellects they have been
unkindly treated - too much flattered, too little respected. They
are shut up in a world of conventionalities, and naturally believe that
to be the only world. The theory of their education seems to be,
that they should not be made companions to men, and some would say,
they certainly are not. These critics, however, in the high imaginations
they justly form of what women’s society might be to men, forget,
perhaps, how excellent a thing it is already. Still the criticism
is not by any means wholly unjust. It appears rather as if there
had been a falling off since the olden times in the education of women.
A writer of modern days, arguing on the other side, has said, that though
we may talk of the Latin and Greek of Lady Jane Grey and Queen Elizabeth,
yet we are to consider that that was the only learning of the time,
and that many a modern lady may be far better instructed, although she
knew nothing of Latin and Greek. Certain it is, she may know more
facts, have read more books: but this does not assure us that she may
not be less conversable, less companionable. Wherein does the
cultivated and thoughtful man differ from the common man? In the
method of his discourse. His questions upon a subject in which
he is ignorant are full of interest. His talk has a groundwork
of reason. This rationality must not be supposed to be dulness.
Folly is dull. Now, would women be less charming if they had more
power, or at least more appreciation, of reasoning? Their flatterers
tell them that their intuition is such that they need not man’s
slow processes of thought. One would be very sorry to have a grave
question of law that concerned oneself decided upon by intuitive judges,
or a question of fact by intuitive jurymen. And so of all human
things that have to be canvassed, it is better, and more amusing too,
that they should be discussed according to reason. Moreover, the
exercise of the reasoning faculties gives much of the pleasure which
there is in solid acquirements; so that the obvious facts in life and
history will hardly be acquired by those who are not in the habit of
reasoning upon them. Hence it comes, that women have less interest
in great topics, and less knowledge of them, than they might have.</p>
<p>Again, if either sex requires logical education, it is theirs.
The sharp practice of the world drives some logic into the most vague
of men; women are not so schooled.</p>
<p>But, supposing the deficiency we have been considering to be admitted,
how is it to be remedied? Women’s education must be made
such as to ensure some accuracy and reasoning. This may be done
with any subject of education, and is done with men, whatever they learn,
because they are expected to produce and use their requirements.
But the greatest object of intellectual education, the improvement of
the mental powers, is as needful for one sex as the other, and requires
the same means in both sexes. The same accuracy, attention, logic,
and method that are attempted in the education of men should be aimed
at in that of women. This will never be sufficiently attended
to, as there are no immediate and obvious fruits from it. And,
therefore, as it is probable, from the different career of women to
that of men, that whatever women study will not be studied with the
same method and earnestness as it would be by men, what a peculiar advantage
there is in any study for them, in which no proficiency whatever can
be made without some use of most of the qualities we desire for them.
Geometry, for instance, is such a study. It may appear pedantic,
but I must confess that Euclid seems to me a book for the young of both
sexes. The severe rules upon which the acquisition of the dead
languages is built would of course be a great means for attaining the
logical habits in question. But Latin and Greek is a deeper pedantry
for women than geometry, and much less desirable on many accounts: and
geometry would, perhaps, suffice to teach them what reasoning is.
I daresay, too, there are accomplishments which might be taught scientifically;
and so even the prejudice against the manifest study of science by women
be conciliated. But the appreciation of reasoning must be got
somehow.</p>
<p>It is a narrow view of things to suppose that a just cultivation
of women’s mental powers will take them out of their sphere: it
will only enlarge that sphere. The most cultivated women perform
their common duties best. They see more in those duties.
They can do more. Lady Jane Grey would, I daresay, have bound
up a wound, or managed a household, with any unlearned woman of her
day. Queen Elizabeth did manage a kingdom: and we find no pedantry
in her way of doing it.</p>
<p>People who advocate a better training for women must not, necessarily,
be supposed to imagine that men and women are by education to be made
alike, and are intended to fulfil most of the same offices. There
seems reason for thinking that a boundary line exists between the intellects
of men and women which, perhaps, cannot be passed over from either side.
But, at any rate, taking the whole nature of both sexes, and the inevitable
circumstances which cause them to differ, there must be such a difference
between men and women that the same intellectual training applied to
both would produce most dissimilar results. It has not, however,
been proposed in these pages to adopt the same training: and would have
been still less likely to be proposed if it could be shown that such
training would tend to make men and women unpleasantly similar to each
other. The utmost that has been thought of here is to make more
of women’s faculties, not by any means to translate them into
men’s - if such a thing were possible, which, we may venture to
say, is not. There are some things that are good for all trees
- light, air, room - but no one expects by affording some similar advantages
of this kind to an oak and a beech, to find them assimilate, though
by such means the best of each may be produced.</p>
<p>Moreover, it should be recollected that the purpose of education
is not always to foster natural gifts, but sometimes to bring out faculties
that might otherwise remain dormant; and especially so far as to make
the persons educated cognisant of excellence in those faculties in others.
A certain tact and refinement belong to women, in which they have little
to learn from the first: men, too, who attain some portion of these
qualities, are greatly the better for them, and I should imagine not
less acceptable on that account to women. So, on the other side,
there may be an intellectual cultivation for women which may seem a
little against the grain, which would not, however, injure any of their
peculiar gifts - would, in fact, carry those gifts to the highest, and
would increase withal, both to men and women, the pleasure of each other’s
society.</p>
<p>There is a branch of general education which is not thought at all
necessary for women; as regards which, indeed, it is well if they are
not brought up to cultivate the opposite. Women are not taught
to be courageous. Indeed, to some persons courage may seem as
unnecessary for women as Latin and Greek. Yet there are few things
that would tend to make women happier in themselves, and more acceptable
to those with whom they live, than courage. There are many women
of the present day, sensible women in other things, whose panic-terrors
are a frequent source of discomfort to themselves and those around them.
Now, it is a great mistake to imagine that harshness must go with courage;
and that the bloom of gentleness and sympathy must all be rubbed off
by that vigour of mind which gives presence of mind, enables a person
to be useful in peril, and makes the desire to assist overcome that
sickliness of sensibility which can only contemplate distress and difficulty.
So far from courage being unfeminine, there is a peculiar grace and
dignity in those beings who have little active power of attack or defence,
passing through danger with a moral courage which is equal to that of
the strongest. We see this in great things. We perfectly
appreciate the sweet and noble dignity of an Anne Bullen, a Mary Queen
of Scots, or a Marie Antoinette. We see that it is grand for these
delicately-bred, high-nurtured, helpless personages to meet Death with
a silence and a confidence like his own. But there would be a
similar dignity in women’s bearing small terrors with fortitude.
There is no beauty in fear. It is a mean, ugly, dishevelled creature.
No statue can be made of it that a woman would like to see herself like.</p>
<p>Women are pre-eminent in steady endurance of tiresome suffering:
they need not be far behind men in a becoming courage to meet that which
is sudden and sharp. The dangers and the troubles, too, which
we may venture to say they now start at unreasonably, are many of them
mere creatures of the imagination - such as, in their way, disturb high-mettled
animals brought up to see too little, and therefore frightened at any
leaf blown across the road.</p>
<p>We may be quite sure that, without losing any of the most delicate
and refined of feminine graces, women may be taught not to give way
to unreasonable fears, which should belong no more to the fragile than
to the robust.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that courage may in some measure be taught.
We agree that the lower kinds of courage are matter of habit, therefore
of teaching: and the same thing holds good to some extent of all courage.
Courage is as contagious as fear. The saying is, that the brave
are the sons and daughters of the brave; but we might as truly say that
they must be brought up by the brave. The great novelist, when
he wants a coward descended from a valorous race, does well to take
him from his clan and bring him up in an unwarlike home. <a name="citation126"></a><a href="#footnote126">{126}</a>
Indeed, the heroic example of other days is in great part the source
of courage of each generation; and men walk up composedly to the most
perilous enterprises, beckoned onwards by the shades of the brave that
were. In civil courage, moral courage, or courage shown in the
minute circumstances of everyday life, the same law is true. Courage
may be taught by precept, enforced by example, and is good to be taught
to men, women, and children.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>EDUCATION TO HAPPINESS.</p>
<p>It is a curious phenomenon in human affairs, that some of those matters
in which education is most potent should have been amongst the least
thought of as branches of it. What you teach a boy of Latin and
Greek may be good; but these things are with him but a little time of
each day in his after-life. What you teach him of direct moral
precepts may be very good seed: it may grow up, especially if it have
sufficient moisture from experience; but then, again, a man is, happily,
not doing obvious right or wrong all day long. What you teach
him of any bread-getting art may be of some import to him, as to the
quantity and quality of bread he will get; but he is not always with
his art. With himself he is always. How important, then,
it is, whether you have given him a happy or a morbid turn of mind;
whether the current of his life is a clear wholesome stream, or bitter
as Marah. The education to happiness is a possible thing - not
to a happiness supposed to rest upon enjoyments of any kind, but to
one built upon content and resignation. This is the best part
of philosophy. This enters into the “wisdom” spoken
of in the Scriptures. Now it can be taught. The converse
is taught every day and all day long.</p>
<p>To take an example. A sensitive disposition may descend to
a child; but it is also very commonly increased, and often created.
Captiousness, sensitiveness, and a Martha-like care for the things of
this world, are often the direct fruits of education. All these
faults of the character, and they are amongst the greatest, may be summed
up in a disproportionate care for little things. This is rather
a growing evil. The painful neatness and exactness of modern life
foster it. Long peace favours it. Trifles become more important,
great evils being kept away. And so, the tide of small wishes
and requirements gains upon us fully as fast as we can get out of its
way by our improved means of satisfying them. Now the unwholesome
concern that many parents and governors manifest as to small things
must have a great influence on the governed. You hear a child
reprimanded about a point of dress, or some trivial thing, as if it
had committed a treachery. The criticisms, too, which it hears
upon others are often of the same kind. Small omissions, small
commissions, false shame, little stumbling-blocks of offence, trifling
grievances of the kind that Dr. Johnson, who had known hunger, stormed
at Mrs. Thrale for talking about, are made much of; general dissatisfaction
is expressed that things are not complete, and that everything in life
is not turned out as neat as a Long-Acre carriage; commands are expected
to be fulfilled by agents, upon very rapid and incomplete orders, exactly
to the mind of the person ordering; - these ways, to which children
are very attentive, teach them in their turn to be querulous, sensitive,
and full of small cares and wishes. And when you have made a child
like this, can you make a world for him that will satisfy him?
Tax your civilisation to the uttermost: a punctilious, tiresome disposition
expects more. Indeed, Nature, with her vague and flowing ways,
cannot at all fit in with a right-angled person. Besides, there
are other precise, angular creatures, and these sharp-edged persons
wound each other terribly. Of all the things which you can teach
people, after teaching them to trust in God, the most important is,
to put out of their hearts any expectation of perfection, according
to their notions, in this world. This expectation is at the bottom
of a great deal of the worldliness we hear so much reprehended, and
necessarily gives to little things a most irrational importance.</p>
<p>Observe the effect of this disproportionate care for little things
in the disputes of men. A man who does so care, has a garment
embroidered with hooks which catch at everything that passes by.
He finds many more causes of offence than other men; and each offence
is a more bitter thing to him than to others. He does not expect
to be offended. Poor man! He goes through life wondering
that he is the subject of general attack, and that the world is so quarrelsome.</p>
<p>The result of a bad education in developing undue care for trifles
may be seen in its effect on domestic government and government in general.
If those in power have this fault, they will make the persons under
them miserable by petty, constant blame; or they will make them indifferent
to all blame. If this fault is in the governed, they will captiously
object to all the ways and plans of their superiors, not knowing the
difficulty of doing anything; they will expect miracles of attention,
justice, and temper, which the rough-hewed ways of men do not admit
of; and they will repine and tease the life out of those in authority.
Sometimes both superiors and inferiors, governors and governed, have
this fault. This must often happen in a family, and is a fearful
punishment to the elders of it. Scarcely any goodness of disposition,
and what are called great qualities, can make such difficult materials
work well together.</p>
<p>But I end with somewhat of the same argument as I began with, namely,
that as a man lives more with himself than with art, science, or even
with his fellows, a wise teacher, having before him the intent to make
a happy-minded man of his pupil, will try to lay a groundwork of divine
contentment in him. If he cannot make him easily pleased, he will
at least try and prevent him from being easily disconcerted. Why,
even the self-conceit that makes people indifferent to small things,
wrapping them in an atmosphere of self-satisfaction, is welcome in a
man compared to that querulousness which makes him an enemy to all around.
But most commendable is that easiness of mind which is easy because
it is tolerant, because it does not look to have everything its own
way, because it expects anything but smooth usage in its course here,
because it has resolved to manufacture as few miseries out of small
evils as can be.</p>
<p>Most of us know what it is to vex our minds because we cannot recall
some name or trivial thing which has escaped our memory for the moment.
But then we think how foolish this is, what little concern it is to
us. We are right in that; yet any defect of memory is a great
concern compared to many of the trifling niceties, comforts, offences,
and rectangularities which, perhaps, we do not think it an ignoble use
of heart and time to waste ourselves upon. It would be well enough
to entertain the rabble of small troubles and offences, if we could
lay them aside with the delightful facility of children, who, after
an agony of tears, are soon found laughing or asleep. But the
chagrin and vexation of grown-up people are grown-up too; and, however
childish in their origin, are not to be laughed or danced or slept away
in childlike simple-heartedness.</p>
<p>We must not imagine that too much stress can well be laid upon the
importance of an education to contentment, for it comes under the head
of those things which are not adjuncts or acquisitions for a man, but
which form the texture of his being. What a man has learnt is
of importance; but what he is, what he can do, what he will become,
are more significant things. Finally, it may be remarked, that,
to make education a great work, we must have the educators great; that
book-learning is mainly good as it gives us a chance of coming into
the company of greater and better minds than the average of men around
us; and that individual greatness and goodness are the things to be
aimed at rather than the successful cultivation of those talents which
go to form some eminent membership of society. Each man is a drama
in himself - has to play all the parts in it; is to be king and rebel,
successful and vanquished, free and slave; and needs a bringing-up fit
for the universal creature that he is.</p>
<p> -----</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. You have been unexpectedly merciful to us.
The moment I heard the head of the essay given out, there flitted before
my frightened mind volumes of reports, Battersea schools, Bell, Wilderspin,
normal farms, National Society, British Schools, interminable questions
about how religion might be separated altogether from secular education,
or so much religion taught as all religious sects could agree in.
These are all very good things and people to discuss, I daresay; but,
to tell the truth, the whole subject sits heavy on my soul. I
meet a man of inexhaustible dulness, and he talks to me for three hours
about some great subject - this very one of education, for instance
- till I sit entranced by stupidity, thinking the while, “And
this is what we are to become by education - to be like you.”
Then I see a man like D---, a judicious, reasonable, conversable being,
knowing how to be silent too - a man to go through a campaign with -
and I find he cannot read or write.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. This sort of contrast is just the thing to
strike you, Ellesmere: and yet you know as well as any of us that to
bring forward such contrasts by way of depreciating education would
be most unreasonable. There are three things that go to make a
man - the education that most people mean by education; then the education
that goes deeper, the education of the soul; and, thirdly, a man’s
gifts of Nature. I agree with all you say about D---; he never
says a foolish thing, and does a great many judicious ones. But
look what a clever face he has. There are gifts of Nature for
you. Then, again, although he cannot read or write, he may have
been most judiciously brought up in other respects. He may have
had two, therefore, out of the three elements of education. What
such instances would show, I believe, if narrowly looked into, is the
immense importance of the education of heart and temper.</p>
<p>I feel with you in some measure about the dulness of the subject
of education. But then it extends to all things of the institution
kind. Men must have a great deal of pedantry, routine, and folly
of all sorts, in any large matter they undertake. I had had this
feeling for a long time (you know the way in which you have a thing
in your mind, although you have never said it out exactly even to yourself)
- well, I came upon a passage of Emerson’s which I will try to
quote, and then I knew what it was that I had felt.</p>
<p>“We are full of mechanical actions. We must needs intermeddle,
and have things in our own way, until the sacrifices and virtues of
society are odious. Love should make joy; but our benevolence
is unhappy. Our Sunday-schools, and churches, and pauper societies,
are yokes to the neck. We pain ourselves to please nobody.
There are natural ways of arriving at the same ends at which these aim,
but do not arrive. Why should all virtue work in one and the same
way?” . . . “And why drag this dead weight of a Sunday-school
over the whole of Christendom? It is natural and beautiful that
childhood should inquire, and maturity should teach; but it is time
enough to answer questions when they are asked. Do not shut up
the young people against their will in a pew, and force the children
to ask them questions for an hour against their will.”</p>
<p>Now, without agreeing with him in all points, we may sympathise with
him.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I agree with him.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I knew you would. You love an extreme.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. But look now. It is well to say, “It
is natural and beautiful that the young should ask and the old should
teach”; but then the old should be capable of teaching, which
is not the case we have to deal with. Institutions are often only
to meet individual failings. Let there be more instructed elders,
and the “dead weight” of Sunday-schools would be less needed.</p>
<p>I think the result of our thoughts would be, that there should be
as much life, joy, and Nature put into teaching as can be; but I, for
one, am not prepared to say that the most mechanical process is not
better than none.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well, you have now shut up the subject, according
to your fashion, in a rounded sentence; and you think after that there
is nothing more to be said. But I say it goes to my heart - </p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. What is that?</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. To my heart to see the unmerciful quantity
of instruction that little children go through on a Sunday. I
suppose I am a very wicked man; but I know how wearied I should have
been, at any time of my life, if so much virtuous precept and good doctrine
had been poured into me.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Well, I will not fight certainly for anything
that is to make Sunday a wearisome day for children. Indeed, what
I meant by putting more joy and life into teaching was, that in such
a thing as this Sunday-schooling, for instance, a judicious man, far
from being anxious to get a certain quantity of routine done about it,
would do with the least - would endeavour to connect it with something
interesting - would, in a word, love children, and not Sunday-schools.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Ah, we will have no more about Sunday-schools.
I know we all agree in reality, although Dunsford has been looking very
grave and has not said a word. I wanted to tell you that I think
you are quite right, Milverton, in saying a good deal about multifariousness
of pursuit. You see a wretch of a pedant who knows all about tetrameters
or statutes of uses, but who, as you hinted an essay or two ago, can
hardly answer his child a question as they walk about the garden together.
The man has never given a good thought or look to Nature. Well
then, again, what a stupid thing it is that we are not all taught music.
Why learn the language of many portions of mankind, and leave the universal
language of the feelings, as you would call it, unlearnt?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I quite agree with you; but I thought you
always set your face, or rather your ears, against music.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. So did I.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I should like to know all about it.
It is not to my mind that a cultivated man should be quite thrown out
by any topic of conversation, or that there should be any form of human
endeavour or accomplishment which he has no conception of.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I liked what you said, Milverton, about the
philosophy of making light of many things, and the way of looking at
life that may thus be given to those we educate. I rather doubted
at first, though, whether you were not going to assign too much power
to education in the modification of temper. But, certainly, the
mode of looking at the daily events of life, little or great, and the
consequent habits of captiousness or magnanimity, are just the matters
which the young especially imitate their elders in.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. You see, the very worst kind of tempers are
established upon the fretting care for trifles that I want to make war
upon in the essay. A man is choleric. Well, it is a very
bad thing; it tends to frighten those about him into falseness.
He has outrageous bursts of temper. He is humble for days afterwards.
His dependants rather like him after all. They know that “his
bark is worse than his bite.” Then there is your gloomy
man, often a man who punishes himself most - perhaps a large-hearted,
humorous, but sad man, at the same time liveable with. He does
not care for trifles. But it is your acid-sensitive (I must join
words like Mirabeau’s Grandison-Cromwell, to get what I mean),
and your cold, querulous people that need to have angels to live with
them. Now education has often had a great deal to do with the
making of these choice tempers. They are somewhat artificial productions.
And they are the worst.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. You know a saying attributed to the Bishop
of --- about temper. No? Somebody, I suppose, was
excusing something on the score of temper, to which the Bishop replied,
“Temper is nine-tenths of Christianity.”</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. There is an appearance we see in Nature,
not far from here, by the way, that has often put me in mind of the
effect of temper upon men. It is in the lowlands near the sea,
where, when the tide is not up (the man out of temper), there is a slimy,
patchy, diseased-looking surface of mud and sick seaweed. You
pass by in a few hours, there is a beautiful lake, water up to the green
grass (the man in temper again), and the whole landscape brilliant with
reflected light.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. And to complete the likeness, the good temper
and the full tide last about the same time - with some men at least.
It is so like you, Milverton, to have that simile in your mind.
There is nothing you see in Nature, but you must instantly find a parallel
for it in man. Sermons in stones you will not see, else I am sure
you might. Here is a good hard flint for you to see your next
essay in.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. It will do very well, as my next will be
on the subject of population.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. What day are we to have it? I think
I have a particular engagement for that day.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I must come upon you unawares.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. After the essay you certainly might.
Let us decamp now and do something great in the way of education - teach
Rollo, though he is but a short-haired dog, to go into the water.
That will be a feat.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<h3>CHAPTER IX.</h3>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<p>Ellesmere succeeded in persuading Rollo to go into the water, which
proved more, he said, than the whole of Milverton’s essay, how
much might be done by judicious education. Before leaving my friends,
I promised to come over again to Worth-Ashton in a day or two, to hear
another essay. I came early and found them reading their letters.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>“You remember Annesleigh at college,” said Milverton,
“do you not, Dunsford?”</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Yes.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Here is a long letter from him. He
is evidently vexed at the newspaper articles about his conduct in a
matter of ----, and he writes to tell me that he is totally misrepresented.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Why does he not explain this publicly?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes, you naturally think so at first, but
such a mode of proceeding would never do for a man in office, and rarely,
perhaps, for any man. At least, so the most judicious people seem
to think. I have known a man in office bear patiently, without
attempting any answer, a serious charge which a few lines would have
entirely answered, indeed, turned the other way. But then he thought,
I imagine, that if you once begin answering, there is no end to it,
and also, which is more important, that the public journals were not
a tribunal which he was called to appear before. He had his official
superiors.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. It should be widely known and acknowledged
then, that silence does not give consent in these cases.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. It is known, though not, perhaps, sufficiently.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. What a fearful power this anonymous journalism
is!</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. There is a great deal certainly that is mischievous
in it; but take it altogether, it is a wonderful product of civilisation
- morally too. Even as regards those qualities which would in
general, to use a phrase of Bacon’s, “be noted as deficients”
in the press, in courtesy and forbearance, for example, it makes a much
better figure than might have been expected; as any one would testify,
I suspect, who had observed, or himself experienced, the temptations
incident to writing on short notice, without much opportunity of after-thought
or correction, upon subjects about which he had already expressed an
opinion.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Is the anonymousness absolutely necessary?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I have often thought whether it is.
If the anonymousness were taken away, the press would lose much of its
power; but then, why should it not lose a portion of its power, if that
portion is only built upon some delusion?</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. It is a question of expediency. As
government of all kinds becomes better managed, there is less necessity
for protection for the press. It must be recollected, however,
that this anonymousness (to coin a word) may not only be useful to protect
us from any abuse of power, but that at least it takes away that temptation
to discuss things in an insufficient manner which arises from personal
fear of giving offence. Then, again, there is an advantage in
considering arguments without reference to persons. If well-known
authors wrote for the press and gave their signatures, we should often
pass by the arguments unfairly, saying, “Oh, it is only so-and-so:
that is the way he always looks at things,” without seeing whether
it is the right way for the occasion in question.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. But take the other side, Ellesmere.
What national dislikes are fostered by newspaper articles, and - </p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Articles in reviews and by books.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes, but somehow or other, people imagine
that newspapers speak the opinion of a much greater number of people
- </p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Do not let us talk any more about it.
We may become wise enough and well-managed enough to do without this
anonymousness: we may not. How it would astound an ardent Whig
or Radical of the last generation if we could hear such a sentiment
as this - as a toast we will say - ”The Press: and may we become
so civilised as to be able to take away some of its liberty.”</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. It may be put another way: “May it
become so civilised that we shall not want to take away any of its liberty.”
But I see you are tired of this subject. Shall we go on the lawn
and have our essay?</p>
<p>We assented, and Milverton read the following: - </p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>UNREASONABLE CLAIMS IN SOCIAL AFFECTIONS AND RELATIONS.</p>
<p>We are all apt to magnify the importance of whatever we are thinking
about, which is not to be wondered at; for everything human has an outlet
into infinity, which we come to perceive on considering it. But
with a knowledge of this tendency, I still venture to say that, of all
that concerns mankind, this subject has, perhaps, been the least treated
of in regard to its significance. For once that unreasonable expectations
of gratitude have been reproved, ingratitude has been denounced a thousand
times; and the same may be said of inconstancy, unkindness in friendship,
neglected merit and the like.</p>
<p>To begin with ingratitude. Human beings seldom have the demands
upon each other which they imagine; and for what they have done they
frequently ask an impossible return. Moreover, when people really
have done others a service, the persons benefited often do not understand
it. Could they have understood it, the benefactor, perhaps, would
not have had to perform it. You cannot expect gratitude from them
in proportion to your enlightenment. Then, again, where the service
is a palpable one, thoroughly understood, we often require that the
gratitude for it should bear down all the rest of the man’s character.
The dog is the very emblem of faithfulness; yet I believe it is found
that he will sometimes like the person who takes him out and amuses
him more than the person who feeds him. So, amongst bipeds, the
most solid service must sometimes give way to the claims of congeniality.
Human creatures are, happily, not to be swayed by self-interest alone:
they are many-sided creatures; there are numberless modes of attaching
their affections. Not only like likes like, but unlike likes unlike.</p>
<p>To give an instance which must often occur. Two persons, both
of feeble will, act together: one as superior, the other as inferior.
The superior is very kind; the inferior is grateful. Circumstances
occur to break this relation. The inferior comes under a superior
of strong will, who is not, however, as tolerant and patient as his
predecessor. But this second superior soon acquires unbounded
influence over the inferior: if the first one looks on, he may wonder
at the alacrity and affection of his former subordinate towards the
new man, and talk much about ingratitude. But the inferior has
now found somebody to lean upon and to reverence. And he cannot
deny his nature and be otherwise than he is. In this case it does
not look like ingratitude, except perhaps to the complaining person.
But there are doubtless numerous instances in which, if we saw all the
facts clearly, we should no more confirm the charge of ingratitude than
we do here.</p>
<p>Then, again, we seldom make sufficient allowance for the burden which
there is in obligation, at least to all but great and good minds.
There are some people who can receive as heartily as they would give;
but the obligation of an ordinary person to an ordinary person is more
apt to be brought to mind as a present sore than as a past delight.</p>
<p>Amongst the unreasonable views of the affections, the most absurd
one has been the fancy that love entirely depends upon the will; still
more that the love of others for us is to be guided by the inducements
which seem probable to us. We have served them; we think only
of them; we are their lovers, or fathers, or brothers: we deserve and
require to be loved and to have the love proved to us. But love
is not like property: it has neither duties nor rights. You argue
for it in vain; and there is no one who can give it you. It is
not his or hers to give. Millions of bribes and infinite arguments
cannot prevail. For it is not a substance, but a relation.
There is no royal road. We are loved as we are lovable to the
person loving. It is no answer to say that in some cases the love
is based on no reality, but is solely in the imagination - that is,
that we are loved not for what we are, but for what we are fancied to
be. That will not bring it any more into the dominions of logic;
and love still remains the same untamable creature, deaf to advocacy,
blind to other people’s idea of merit, and not a substance to
be weighed or numbered at all.</p>
<p>Then, as to the complaints about broken friendship. Friendship
is often outgrown; and his former child’s clothes will no more
fit a man than some of his former friendships. Often a breach
of friendship is supposed to occur when there is nothing of the kind.
People see one another seldom; their courses in life are different;
they meet, and their intercourse is constrained. They fancy that
their friendship is mightily cooled. But imagine the dearest friends,
one coming home after a long sojourn, the other going out to new lands:
the ships that carry these meet: the friends talk together in a confused
way not relevant at all to their friendship, and, if not well assured
of their mutual regard, might naturally fancy that it was much abated.
Something like this occurs daily in the stream of the world. Then,
too, unless people are very unreasonable, they cannot expect that their
friends will pass into new systems of thought and action without new
ties of all kinds being created, and some modification of the old ones
taking place.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>When we are talking of exorbitant claims made for the regard of others,
we must not omit those of what is called neglected merit. A man
feels that he has abilities or talents of a particular kind, that he
has shown them, and still he is a neglected man. I am far from
saying that merit is sufficiently looked out for: but a man may take
the sting out of any neglect of his merits by thinking that at least
it does not arise from malice prepense, as he almost imagines in his
anger. Neither the public, nor individuals, have the time, or
will, resolutely to neglect anybody. What pleases us, we admire
and further: if a man in any profession, calling, or art, does things
which are beyond us, we are as guiltless of neglecting him as the Caffres
are of neglecting the differential calculus. Milton sells his
“Paradise Lost” for ten pounds; there is no record of Shakespeare
dining much with Queen Elizabeth. And it is Utopian to imagine
that statues will be set up to right men in their day.</p>
<p>The same arguments which applied to the complaints of ingratitude,
apply to the complaints of neglected merit. The merit is oftentimes
not understood. Be it ever so manifest, it cannot absorb men’s
attention. When it is really great, it has not been brought out
by the hope of reward, any more than the kindest services by the hope
of gratitude. In neither case is it becoming or rational to be
clamorous about payment.</p>
<p>There is one thing that people hardly ever remember, or, indeed,
have imagination enough to conceive; namely, the effect of each man
being shut up in his individuality. Take a long course of sayings
and doings in which many persons have been engaged. Each one of
them is in his own mind the centre of the web, though, perhaps, he is
at the edge of it. We know that in our observations of the things
of sense, any difference in the points from which the observation is
taken gives a different view of the same thing. Moreover, in the
world of sense, the objects and the points of view are each indifferent
to the rest; but in life the points of views are centres of action that
have had something to do with the making of the things looked at.
If we could calculate the moral parallax arising from these causes,
we should see, by the mere aid of the intellect, how unjust we often
are in our complaints of ingratitude, inconstancy, and neglect.
But without these nice calculations, such errors of view may be corrected
at once by humility, a more sure method than the most enlightened appreciation
of the cause of error. Humility is the true cure for many a needless
heartache.</p>
<p>It must not be supposed that in thus opposing unreasonable views
of social affections, anything is done to dissever such affections.
The Duke of Wellington, writing to a man in a dubious position of authority,
says “The less you claim, the more you will have.”
This is remarkably true of the affections; and there is scarcely anything
that would make men happier than teaching them to watch against unreasonableness
in their claims of regard and affection; and which at the same time
would be more likely to ensure their getting what may be their due.</p>
<p> -----</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i> (clapping his hands). An essay after my heart:
worth tons of soft trash. In general you are amplifying duties,
telling everybody that they are to be so good to every other body.
Now it is as well to let every other body know that he is not to expect
all he may fancy from everybody. A man complains that his prosperous
friends neglect him: infinitely overrating, in all probability, his
claims, and his friends’ power of doing anything for him.
Well, then, you may think me very hard, but I say that the most absurd
claims are often put forth on the ground of relationship. I do
not deny that there is something in blood, but it must not be made too
much of. Near relations have great opportunities of attaching
each other; if they fail to use these, I do not think it is well to
let them imagine that mere relationship is to be the talisman of affection.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I do not see exactly how to answer all that
you or Milverton have said; but I am not prepared, as official people
say, to agree with you. I especially disagree with what Milverton
has said about love. He leaves much too little power to the will.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I daresay I may have done so. These
are very deep matters, and any one view about them does not exhaust
them. I remember C---- once saying to me that a man never utters
anything without error. He may even think of it rightly; but he
cannot bring it out rightly. It turns a little false, as it were,
when it quits the brain and comes into life.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I thought you would soon go over to the soft
side. Here, Rollo; there’s a good dog. You do not
form unreasonable expectations, do you? A very little petting
puts you into an ecstasy, and you are much wiser than many a biped who
is full of his claims for gratitude, and friendship, and love, and who
is always longing for well-merited rewards to fall into his mouth.
Down, dog!</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Poor animal! it little knows that all this
sudden notice is only by way of ridiculing us. Why I did not maintain
my ground stoutly against Dunsford is, that I am always afraid of pushing
moral conclusions too far. Since we have been talking, I think
I see more clearly than I did before what I mean to convey by the essay
- namely, that men fall into unreasonable views respecting the affections
<i>from imagining that the general laws of the mind are suspended for
the sake of the affections.</i></p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. That seems safer ground.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Now to illustrate what I mean by a very similar
instance. The mind is avid of new impressions. It “travels
over,” or thinks it travels over, another mind; and, though it
may conceal its wish for “fresh fields and pastures new,”
it does so wish. However harsh, therefore, and unromantic it may
seem, the best plan is to humour Nature, and not to exhaust by overfrequent
presence the affection of those whom we would love, or whom we would
have to love us. I would not say, after the manner of Rochefoucauld,
that the less we see of people the more we like them; but there are
certain limits of sociality; and prudent reserve and absence may find
a place in the management of the tenderest relations.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Yes, all this is true enough: I do not see
anything hard in this. But then there is the other side.
Custom is a great aid to affection.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes. All I say is, do not fancy that
the general laws are suspended for the sake of any one affection.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Still this does not go to the question whether
there is not something more of will in affection than you make out.
You would speak of inducements and counter-inducements, aids and hindrances;
but I cannot but think you are limiting the power of will, and therefore
limiting duty. Such views tend to make people easily discontented
with each other, and prevent their making efforts to get over offences,
and to find out what is lovable in those about them.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Here we are in the deep places again.
I see you are pondering, Milverton. It is a question, as a minister
would say when Parliament perplexes him, that we must go to the country
upon; each man’s heart will, perhaps, tell him best about it.
For my own part, I think that the continuance of affection, as the rise
of it, depends more on the taste being satisfied, or at least not disgusted,
than upon any other single thing. Our hearts may be touched at
our being loved by people essentially distasteful to us, whose modes
of talking and acting are a continual offence to us; but whether we
can love them in return is a question.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes, we can, I think. I begin to see
that it is a question of degree. The word love includes many shades
of meaning. When it includes admiration, of course we cannot be
said to love those in whom we see nothing to admire. But this
seldom happens in the mixed characters of real life. The upshot
of it all seems to me to be, that, as Guizot says of civilisation, every
impulse has room; so in the affections, every inducement and counter-inducement
has its influence; and the result is not a simple one, which can be
spoken of as if it were alike on all occasions and with all men.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I am still unanswered, I think, Milverton.
What you say is still wholly built upon inducements, and does not touch
the power of will.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. No; it does not.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. We must leave that alone. Infinite
piles of books have not as yet lifted us up to a clear view of that
matter.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Well, then, we must leave it as a vexed question;
but let it be seen that there is such a question. Now, as to another
thing; you speak, Milverton, of men’s not making allowance enough
for the unpleasant weight of obligation. I think that weight seems
to have increased in modern times. Essex could give Bacon a small
estate, and Bacon could take it comfortably, I have no doubt.
That is a much more wholesome state of things among friends than the
present.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes, undoubtedly. An extreme notion
about independence has made men much less generous in receiving.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. It is a falling off, then. There was
another comment I had to make. I think, when you speak about the
exorbitant demands of neglected merit, you should say more upon the
neglect of the just demands of merit.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I would have the Government and the public
in general try by all means to understand and reward merit, especially
in those matters wherein excellence cannot, otherwise, meet with large
present reward. But, to say the truth, I would have this done,
not with the view of fostering genius so much as of fulfilling duty:
I would say to a minister - it is becoming in you - it is well for the
nation, to reward, as far as you can, and dignify, men of genius.
Whether you will do them any good or bring forth more of them, I do
not know.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Men of great genius are often such a sensitive
race, so apt to be miserable in many other than pecuniary ways and want
of public estimation, that I am not sure that distress and neglect do
not take their minds off worse discomforts. It is a kind of grievance,
too, that they like to have.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Really, Ellesmere, that is a most unfeeling
speech.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. At any rate, it is right for us to honour
and serve a great man. It is our nature to do so, if we are worth
anything. We may put aside the question whether our honour will
do him more good than our neglect. That is a question for him
to look to. The world has not yet so largely honoured deserving
men in their own time, that we can exactly pronounce what effect it
would have upon them.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Come, Rollo, let us leave these men of sentiment.
Oh, you will not go, as your master does not move. Look how he
wags his tail, and almost says, “I should clearly like to have
a hunt after the water-rat we saw in the pond the other day, but master
is talking philosophy, and requires an intelligent audience.”
These dogs are dear creatures, it must be owned. Come, Milverton,
let us have a walk.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<h3>CHAPTER X.</h3>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<p>After the reading in the last chapter, my friends walked homewards
with me as far as Durley Wood, which is about half-way between Worth-Ashton
and my house. As we rested here, we bethought ourselves that it
would be a pleasant spot for us to come to sometimes and read our essays.
So we agreed to name a day for meeting there. The day was favourable,
we met as we had appointed, and finding some beech logs lying very opportunely,
took possession of them for our council. We seated Ellesmere on
one that we called the woolsack, but which he said he felt himself unworthy
to occupy in the presence of King Log, pointing to mine. These
nice points of etiquette being at last settled, Milverton drew out his
papers and was about to begin reading, when Ellesmere thus interrupted
him: - </p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. You were not in earnest, Milverton, about
giving us an essay on population? Because if so, I think I shall
leave this place to you and Dunsford and the ants.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I certainly have been meditating something
of the sort; but have not been able to make much of it.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. If I had been living in those days when it
first beamed upon mankind that the earth was round, I am sure I should
have said, “We know now the bounds of the earth: there are no
interminable plains joined to the regions of the sun, allowing of indefinite
sketchy outlines at the edges of maps. That little creature man
will immediately begin to think that his world is too small for him.”</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. There has probably been as much folly uttered
by political economy as against it, which is saying something.
The danger as regards theories of political economy is the obvious one
of their abstract conclusions being applied to concrete things.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. As if we were to expect mathematical lines
to bear weights.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Something like that. With a good system
of logic pervading the public mind, this danger would of course be avoided;
but such a state of mind is not likely to occur in any public that we
or our grandchildren are likely to have to deal with. As it is,
an ordinary man hears some conclusion of political economy, showing
some particular tendency of things, which in real life meets with many
counteractions of all kinds: but he, perhaps, adopts the conclusion
without the least abatement, and would work it into life, as if all
went on there like a rule-of-three sum.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. After all, this error arises from the man’s
not having enough political economy. It is not that a theory is
good on paper, but unsound in real life. It is only that in real
life you cannot get at the simple state of things to which the theory
would rightly apply. You want many other theories and the just
composition of them all to be able to work the whole problem.
That being done (which, however, scarcely can be done), the result on
paper might be read off as applicable at once to life. But now,
touching the essay; since we are not to have population, what is it
to be?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Public improvements.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Nearly as bad; but as this is a favourite
subject of yours, I suppose it will not be polite to go away.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. No; you must listen.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.</p>
<p>What are possessions? To an individual, the stores of his own
heart and mind pre-eminently. His truth and valour are amongst
the first. His contentedness, or his resignation may be put next.
Then his sense of beauty, surely a possession of great moment to him.
Then all those mixed possessions which result from the social affections
- great possessions, unspeakable delights, much greater than the gift
last mentioned in the former class, but held on more uncertain tenure.
Lastly, what are generally called possessions? However often we
have heard of the vanity, uncertainty, and vexation that beset these
last, we must not let this repetition deaden our minds to the fact.</p>
<p>Now, national possessions must be estimated by the same gradation
that we have applied to individual possessions. If we consider
national luxury, we shall see how small a part it may add to national
happiness. Men of deserved renown, and peerless women, lived upon
what we should now call the coarsest fare, and paced the rushes in their
rooms with as high, or as contented thoughts, as their better-fed and
better-clothed descendants can boast of. Man is limited in this
direction; I mean, in the things that concern his personal gratification;
but when you come to the higher enjoyments, the expansive power both
in him and them is greater. As Keats says,</p>
<p> “A thing of beauty is a joy for
ever;<br /> Its loveliness increases;
it will never<br /> Pass into nothingness;
but still will keep<br /> A bower
quiet for us, and a sleep<br /> Full
of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.”</p>
<p>What then are a nation’s possessions? The great words
that have been said in it; the great deeds that have been done in it;
the great buildings, and the great works of art, that have been made
in it. A man says a noble saying: it is a possession, first to
his own race, then to mankind. A people get a noble building built
for them: it is an honour to them, also a daily delight and instruction.
It perishes. The remembrance of it is still a possession.
If it was indeed pre-eminent, there will be more pleasure in thinking
of it than in being with others of inferior order and design.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>On the other hand, a thing of ugliness is potent for evil.
It deforms the taste of the thoughtless: it frets the man who knows
how bad it is: it is a disgrace to the nation who raised it; an example
and an occasion for more monstrosities. If it is a great building
in a great city, thousands of people pass it daily, and are the worse
for it, or at least not the better. It must be done away with.
Next to the folly of doing a bad thing is that of fearing to undo it.
We must not look at what it has cost, but at what it is. Millions
may be spent upon some foolish device which will not the more make it
into a possession, but only a more noticeable detriment.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>It must not be supposed that works of art are the only, or the chief,
public improvements needed in any country. Wherever men congregate,
the elements become scarce. The supply of air, light, and water
is then a matter of the highest public importance: and the magnificent
utilitarianism of the Romans should precede the nice sense of beauty
of the Greeks. Or rather, the former should be worked out in the
latter. Sanitary improvements, like most good works, may be made
to fulfil many of the best human objects. Charity, social order,
conveniency of living, and the love of the beautiful, may all be furthered
by such improvements. A people is seldom so well employed as when,
not suffering their attention to be absorbed by foreign quarrels and
domestic broils, they bethink themselves of winning back those blessings
of Nature which assemblages of men mostly vitiate, exclude, or destroy.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>Public improvements are sometimes most difficult in free countries.
The origination of them is difficult there, many diverse minds having
to be persuaded. The individual, or class, resistance to the public
good is harder to conquer than in despotic states. And, what is
most embarrassing, perhaps, individual progress in the same direction,
or individual doings in some other way, form a great hindrance, sometimes,
to public enterprise. On the other hand, the energy of a free
people is a mine of public welfare; and individual effort brings many
good things to bear in much shorter time than any government could be
expected to move in. A judicious statesman considers these things;
and sets himself especially to overcome those peculiar obstacles to
public improvement which belong to the institutions of his country.
Adventure in a despotic state, combined action in a free state, are
the objects which peculiarly demand his attention.</p>
<p>To return to works of art. In this also the genius of the people
is to be heeded. There may have been, there may be, nations requiring
to be diverted from the love of art to stern labour and industrial conquests.
But certainly it is not so with the Anglo-Saxon race, or with the Northern
races generally. Money may enslave them; logic may enslave them;
art never will. The chief men, therefore, in these races will
do well sometimes to contend against the popular current, and to convince
their people that there are other sources of delight, and other objects
worthy of human endeavour, than severe money-getting or more material
successes of any kind.</p>
<p>In fine, the substantial improvement, and even the embellishment
of towns, is a work which both the central and local governing bodies
in a country should keep a steady hand upon. It especially concerns
them. What are they there for but to do that which individuals
cannot do? It concerns them, too, as it tells upon the health,
morals, education, and refined pleasures of the people they govern.
In doing it, they should avoid pedantry, parsimony, and favouritism;
and their mode of action should be large, considerate, and foreseeing.
Large; inasmuch as they must not easily be contented with the second
best in any of their projects. Considerate; inasmuch as they have
to think what their people need most, not what will make most show.
And therefore, they should be contented, for instance, at their work
going on underground for a time, or in byways, if needful; the best
charity in public works, as in private, being often that which courts
least notice. Lastly, their work should be with foresight, recollecting
that cities grow up about us like young people, before we are aware
of it.</p>
<p> -----</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Another very merciful essay! When we
had once got upon the subject of sanitary improvements, I thought we
should soon be five fathom deep in blue-books, reports, interminable
questions of sewerage, and horrors of all kinds.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I am glad you own that I have been very tender
of your impatience in this essay. People, I trust, are now so
fully aware of the immense importance of sanitary improvements, that
we do not want the elementary talking about such things that was formerly
necessary. It is difficult, though, to say too much about sanitary
matters, that is, if by saying much one could gain attention.
I am convinced that the most fruitful source of physical evil to mankind
has been impure air, arising from circumstances which might have been
obviated. Plagues and pestilences of all kinds, cretinism too,
and all scrofulous disorders, are probably mere questions of ventilation.
A district may require ventilation as well as a house.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Seriously speaking, I quite agree with you.
And what delights me in sanitary improvements is, that they can hardly
do harm. Give a poor man good air, and you do not diminish his
self-reliance. You only add to his health and vigour - make more
of a man of him. But now that the public mind, as it is facetiously
called, has got hold of the idea of these improvements, everybody will
be chattering about them.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. The very time when those who really do care
for these matters should be watchful to make the most of the tide in
their favour, and should not suffer themselves to relax their efforts
because there is no originality now about such things.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Custom soon melts off the wings which Novelty
alone has lent to Benevolence.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. And down comes the charitable Icarus.
A very good simile, my dear Dunsford, but rather of the Latin-verse
order. I almost see it worked into an hexameter and pentameter,
and delighting the heart of an Eton boy.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Ellesmere is more than usually vicious to-day,
Milverton. A great “public improvement” would be to
clip the tongues of some of these lawyers.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Possibly. I have just been looking
again at that part of the essay, Milverton, where you talk of the little
gained by national luxury. I think with you. There is an
immensity of nonsense uttered about making people happy, which is to
be done, according to happiness-mongers, by quantities of sugar and
tea, and such-like things. One knows the importance of food, but
there is no Elysium to be got out of it.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I know what you mean. There is a kind
of pity for the people now in vogue which is most effeminate.
It is a sugared sort of Robespierre talk about “The poor but virtuous
People.” To address such stuff to the people is not to give
them anything, but to take away what they have. Suppose you could
give them oceans of tea and mountains of sugar, and abundance of any
luxury that you choose to imagine, but at the same time you inserted
a hungry, envious spirit in them, what have you done? Then, again,
this envious spirit, when it is turned to difference of station, what
good can it do? Can you give station according to merit?
Is life long enough for it?</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Of course we cannot always be weighing men
with nicety, and saying, “Here is your place, here yours.”</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Then, again, what happiness do you confer
on men by teaching them to disrespect their superiors in rank, by turning
all the embellishments which adorn various stations wrong side out,
putting everything in its lowest form, and then saying, “What
do you see to admire here?” You do not know what injury
you may do a man when you destroy all reverence in him. It will
be found out some day that men derive more pleasure and profit from
having superiors than from having inferiors.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. It is seldom that I bring you back to your
subject, but we are really a long way off at present; and I want to
know, Milverton, what you would do specifically in the way of public
improvements. Of course you cannot say in an essay what you would
do in such matters, but amongst ourselves. In London, for instance.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. The first thing for Government to do, Dunsford,
in London, or any other great town, is to secure open spaces in it and
about it. Trafalgar Square may be dotted with hideous absurdities,
but it is an open space. They may collect together there specimens
of every variety of meanness and bad taste; but they cannot prevent
its being a better thing than if it were covered with houses.
Public money is scarcely ever so well employed as in securing bits of
waste ground and keeping them as open spaces. Then, as under the
most favourable circumstances, we are likely to have too much carbon
in the air of any town, we should plant trees to restore the just proportions
of the air as far as we can. <a name="citation161"></a><a href="#footnote161">{161}</a>
Trees are also what the heart and the eye desire most in towns.
The Boulevards in Paris show the excellent effect of trees against buildings.
There are many parts of London where rows of trees might be planted
along the streets. The weighty dulness of Portland Place, for
instance, might be thus relieved. Of course, in any scheme of
public improvements, the getting rid of smoke is one of the first objects.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Yes, smoke is a great abuse; but then there
is something ludicrous about it, just as there is about sewerage.
I believe, myself, that for one person that the Corn Laws have injured,
a dozen have had their lives shortened and their happiness abridged
in every way by these less palpable nuisances. But there is no
grandeur in opposing them - no “good cry” to be raised.
And so, as abuses cannot be met in our days but by agitation - a committee,
secretaries, clerks, newspapers, and a review - and as agitation in
this case holds out fewer inducements than usual, we have gone on year
after year being poisoned by these various nuisances, at an incalculable
expense of life and money.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. There is something in what you say, I think,
but you press it too far; for of late these sanitary subjects have worked
themselves into notice, as you yourself admit.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Late indeed.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Well, but to go on with schemes for improving
London. Open spaces, trees - then comes the supply of water.
This is one of the first things to be done. Philadelphia has given
an example which all towns ought to imitate. It is a matter requiring
great thought, and the various plans should be thoroughly canvassed
before the choice is made. Great beauty and the highest utility
may be combined in supplying a town like London with water. By
the way, how much water do you think London requires daily?</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. As much as the Serpentine and the water in
St. James’s Park.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. You are not so far out.</p>
<p>Well, then, having gone through the largest things that must be attended
to, we come to minor matters. It is a great pity that the system
of building upon leases should be so commonly adopted. Nobody
expects to live out the leasehold term which he takes to build upon.
But things would be better done if people were more averse to having
anything to do with leasehold property. C. always says that the
modern lath-and-plaster system is a wickedness, and upon my word I think
he is right. It is inconceivable to me how a man can make up his
mind to build, or to do anything else, in a temporary, slight, insincere
fashion. What has a man to say for himself who must sum up the
doings of his life in this way, “I chiefly employed myself in
making or selling things which seemed to be good and were not, and nobody
has occasion to bless me for anything I have done.”</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Humph! you put it mildly. But the man
has made perhaps seven per cent. off his money; or, if he has made no
per cent., has ruined several men of his own trade, which is not to
go for nothing when a man is taking stock of his good deeds.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. There is one thing I forgot to say, that
we want more individual will in building, I think. As it is at
present, a great builder takes a plot of ground and turns out innumerable
houses, all alike, the same faults and merits running through each,
thus adding to the general dulness of things.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, when she came
from abroad, remarked that all her friends seemed to have got into drawing-rooms
which were like a grand piano, first a large square or oblong room,
and then a small one. Quite Georgian, this style of architecture.
But now I think we are improving immensely - at any rate in the outside
of houses. By the way, Milverton, I want to ask you one thing:
How is it that Governments and Committees, and the bodies that manage
matters of taste, seem to be more tasteless than the average run of
people? I will wager anything that the cabmen round Trafalgar
Square would have made a better thing of it than it is. If you
had put before them several prints of fountains, they would not have
chosen those.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I think with you, but I have no theory to
account for it. I suppose that these committees are frequently
hampered by other considerations than those which come before the public
when they are looking at the work done; and this may be some excuse.
There was a custom which I have heard prevailed in former days in some
of the Italian cities, of making large models of the works of art that
were to adorn the city, and putting them up in the places intended for
the works when finished, and then inviting criticism. It would
really be a very good plan in some cases.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Now, Milverton, would you not forthwith pull
down such things as Buckingham Palace and the National Gallery?
Dunsford looks at me as if I were going to pull down the Constitution.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I would pull them down to a certainty, or
some parts of them at any rate; but whether “forthwith”
is another question. There are greater things, perhaps, to be
done first. We must consider, too,</p>
<p> “That eternal want of pence<br /> Which
vexes public men.”</p>
<p>Still, I think we ought always to look upon such buildings as temporary
arrangements, and they vex one less then. The Palace ought to
be in the higher part of the Park, perhaps on that slope opposite Piccadilly.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Well, it does amuse me the way in which you
youngsters go on, pulling down, in your industrious imaginations, palaces
and national galleries, building aqueducts and cloacæ maximæ,
forming parks, destroying smoke (so large a part of every Londoner’s
diet), and abridging plaster, without fear of Chancellors of the Exchequer,
and the resistance of mankind in general.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. We must begin by thinking boldly about things.
That is a larger part of any undertaking than it seems, perhaps.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. We must, I am afraid, break off our pleasant
employment of projecting public improvements, unless we mean to be dinnerless.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. A frequent fate of great projectors, I fear.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Now then, homewards.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<h3>CHAPTER XI.</h3>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div>
<p>My readers will, perhaps, agree with me in being sorry to find that
we are coming to the end of our present series. I say, “my
readers,” though I have so little part in purveying for them,
that I mostly consider myself one of them. It is no light task,
however, to give a good account of a conversation; and I say this, and
would wish people to try whether I am not right in saying so, not to
call attention to my labour in the matter, but because it may be well
to notice how difficult it is to report anything truly. Were this
better known, it might be an aid to charity, and prevent some of those
feuds which grow out of the poverty of man’s power to express,
to apprehend, to represent, rather than out of any malignant part of
his nature. But I must not go on moralising. I almost feel
that Ellesmere is looking over my shoulder, and breaking into my discourse
with sharp words; which I have lately been so much accustomed to.</p>
<p>I had expected that we should have many more readings this summer,
as I knew that Milverton had prepared more essays for us. But
finding, as he said, that the other subjects he had in hand were larger
than he had anticipated, or was prepared for, he would not read even
to us what he had written. Though I was very sorry for this -
for I may not be the chronicler in another year - I could not but say
he was right. Indeed, my ideas of literature, nourished as they
have been in much solitude, and by the reading, if I may say so, mainly
of our classical authors, are very high placed, though I hope not fantastical.
And, therefore, I would not discourage anyone in expending whatever
thought and labour might be in him upon any literary work.</p>
<p>In fine, then, I did not attempt to dissuade Milverton from his purpose
of postponing our readings: and we agreed that there should only be
one more for the present. I wished it to be at our favourite place
on the lawn, which had become endeared to me as the spot of many of
our friendly councils.</p>
<p>It was later than usual when I came over to Worth-Ashton for this
reading; and as I gained the brow of the hill, some few clouds tinged
with red were just grouping together to form the accustomed pomp upon
the exit of the setting sun. I believe I mentioned in the introduction
to our first conversation that the ruins of an old castle could be seen
from our place of meeting. Milverton and Ellesmere were talking
about it as I joined them.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes, Ellesmere, many a man has looked out
of those windows upon a sunset like this, with some of the thoughts
that must come into the minds of all men on seeing this great emblem,
the setting sun - has felt, in looking at it, his coming end, or the
closing of his greatness. Those old walls must have been witness
to every kind of human emotion. Henry the Second was there; John,
I think; Margaret of Anjou and Cardinal Beaufort; William of Wykeham;
Henry the Eighth’s Cromwell; and many others who have made some
stir in the world.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. And, perhaps, the greatest there were those
who made no stir.</p>
<p> “The world knows nothing of its
greatest men.”</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I am slow to believe that. I cannot
well reconcile myself to the idea that great capacities are given for
nothing. They bud out in some way or other.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Yes, but it may not be in a noisy way.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. There is one thing that always strikes me
very much in looking at the lives of men: how soon, as it were, their
course seems to be determined. They say, or do, or think, something
which gives a bias at once to the whole of their career.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. You may go farther back than that, and speak
of the impulses they got from their ancestors.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Or the nets around them of other people’s
ways and wishes. There are many things, you see, that go to make
men puppets.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I was only noticing the circumstance that
there was such a thing, as it appeared to me, as this early direction.
But, if it has been ever so unfortunate, a man’s folding his hands
over it in a melancholy mood, and suffering himself to be made a puppet
by it, is a sadly weak proceeding. Most thoughtful men have probably
some dark fountains in their souls, by the side of which, if there were
time, and it were decorous, they could let their thoughts sit down and
wail indefinitely. That long Byron wail fascinated men for a time;
because there is that in Human Nature. Luckily, a great deal besides.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I delight in the helpful and hopeful men.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. A man that I admire very much, and have met
with occasionally, is one who is always of use in any matter he is mixed
up with, simply because he wishes that the best should be got out of
the thing that is possible. There does not seem much in the description
of such a character; but only see it in contrast with that of a brilliant
man, for instance, who does not ever fully care about the matter in
hand.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I can thoroughly imagine the difference.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. The human race may be bound up together in
some mysterious way, each of us having a profound interest in the fortunes
of the whole, and so, to some extent, of every portion of it.
Such a man as I have described acts as though he had an intuitive perception
of that relation, and therefore a sort of family feeling for mankind,
which gives him satisfaction in making the best out of any human affair
he has to do with.</p>
<p>But we really must have the essay, and not talk any more. It
is on History.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>HISTORY.</p>
<p>Among the fathomless things that are about us and within us, is the
continuity of time. This gives to life one of its most solemn
aspects. We may think to ourselves: Would there could be some
halting-place in life, where we could stay, collecting our minds, and
see the world drift by us. But no: even while you read this, you
are not pausing to read it. As one of the great French preachers,
I think, says, We are embarked upon a stream, each in his own little
boat, which must move uniformly onwards, till it ceases to move at all.
It is a stream that knows “no haste, no rest”; a boat that
knows no haven but one.</p>
<p>This unbated continuity suggests the past as well as the future.
We would know what mighty empires this stream of time has flowed through,
by what battle-fields it has been tinged, how it has been employed towards
fertility, and what beautiful shadows on its surface have been seized
by art, or science, or great words, and held in time-lasting, if not
in everlasting, beauty. This is what history tells us. Often
in a faltering, confused, be-darkened way, like the deed it chronicles.
But it is what we have, and we must make the best of it.</p>
<p>The subject of this essay may be thus divided: Why history should
be read - how it should be read - by whom it should be written - how
it should be written - and how good writers of history should be called
forth, aided, and rewarded.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>I. WHY HISTORY SHOULD BE READ.</p>
<p>It takes us out of too much care for the present; it extends our
sympathies; it shows us that other men have had their sufferings and
their grievances; it enriches discourse, it enlightens travel.
So does fiction. But the effect of history is more lasting and
suggestive. If we see a place which fiction has treated of, we
feel that it has some interest for us; but show us a spot where remarkable
deeds have been done, or remarkable people have lived, and our thoughts
cling to it. We employ our own imagination about it: we invent
the fiction for ourselves. Again, history is at least the conventional
account of things: that which men agree to receive as the right account,
and which they discuss as true. To understand their talk, we must
know what they are talking about. Again, there is something in
history which can seldom be got from the study of the lives of individual
men; namely, the movements of men collectively, and for long periods
- of man, in fact, not of men. In history, the composition of
the forces that move the world has to be analysed. We must have
before us the law of the progress of opinion, the interruptions to it
of individual character, the principles on which men act in the main,
the trade winds, as we may say, in human affairs, and the recurrent
storms which one man’s life does not tell us of. Again,
by the study of history, we have a chance of becoming tolerant travelling
over the ways of many nations and many periods; and we may also acquire
that historic tact by which we collect upon one point of human affairs
the light of many ages.</p>
<p>We may judge of the benefit of historical studies by observing what
great defects are incident to the moral and political writers who know
nothing of history. A present grievance, or what seems such, swallows
up in their minds all other considerations; their little bottle of oil
is to still the raging waves of the whole human ocean; their system,
a thing that the historian has seen before, perhaps, in many ages, is
to reconcile all diversities. Then they would persuade you that
this class of men is wholly good, that wholly bad; or that there is
no difference between good and bad. They may be shrewd men, considering
what they have seen, but would be much shrewder if they could know how
small a part that is of life. We may all refer to our boyhood,
and recollect the time when we thought the things about us were the
type of all things everywhere. That was, perhaps, after all no
silly princess who was for feeding the famishing people on cakes.
History takes us out of this confined circle of child-like thought;
and shows us what are the perennial aims, struggles, and distractions
of mankind.</p>
<p>History has always been set down as the especial study for statesmen,
and for men who take an interest in public affairs. For history
is to nations what biography is to individual men. History is
the chart and compass for national endeavour. Our early voyagers
are dead: not a plank remains of the old ships that first essayed unknown
waters; the sea retains no track; and were it not for the history of
these voyages contained in charts, in chronicles, in hoarded lore of
all kinds, each voyager, though he were to start with all the aids of
advanced civilisation (if you could imagine such a thing without history),
would need the boldness of the first voyager.</p>
<p>And so it would be with the statesman, were the civil history of
mankind unknown. We live to some extent in peace and comfort upon
the results obtained for us by the chronicles of our forefathers.
We do not see this without some reflection. But imagine what a
full-grown nation would be if it knew no history - like a full-grown
man with only a child’s experience.</p>
<p>The present is an age of remarkable experiences. Vast improvements
have been made in several of the outward things that concern life nearly,
from intercourse rapid as lightning to surgical operation without pain.
We accept them all; still, the difficulties of government, the management
of ourselves, our relations with others, and many of the prime difficulties
of life remain but little subdued. History still claims our interest,
is still wanted to make us think and act with any breadth of wisdom.</p>
<p>At the same time, however, that we claim for history great powers
of instruction, we must not imagine that the examples which it furnishes
will enable its readers to anticipate the experience of life.
An experienced man reads that Cæsar did this or that, but he says
to himself, “I am not Cæsar.” Or, indeed, as
is most probable, the reader has not to reject the application of the
example to himself: for from first to last he sees nothing but experience
for Cæsar in what Cæsar was doing. I think it may
be observed, too, that general maxims about life gain the ear of the
inexperienced, in preference to historical examples. But neither
wise sayings nor historical examples can be understood without experience.
Words are only symbols. Who can know anything soundly with respect
to the complicated affections and struggles of life, unless he has experienced
some of them? All knowledge of humanity spreads from within.
So in studying history, the lessons it teaches must have something to
grow round in the heart they teach. Our own trials, misfortunes,
and enterprises are the best lights by which we can read history.
Hence it is that many an historian may see far less into the depths
of the very history he has himself written than a man who, having acted
and suffered, reads the history in question with all the wisdom that
comes from action and suffering. Sir Robert Walpole might naturally
exclaim, “Do not read history to me, for that, I know, must be
false.” But if he had read it, I do not doubt that he would
have seen through the film of false and insufficient narrative into
the depth of the matter narrated, in a way that men of great experience
can alone attain to.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>II. HOW HISTORY SHOULD BE READ.</p>
<p>I suppose that many who now connect the very word history with the
idea of dulness, would have been fond and diligent students of history
if it had had fair access to their minds. But they were set down
to read histories which were not fitted to be read continuously, or
by any but practised students. Some such works are mere framework,
a name which the author of the <i>Statesman</i> applies to them; very
good things, perhaps, for their purpose, but that is not to invite readers
to history. You might almost as well read dictionaries with a
hope of getting a succinct and clear view of language. When, in
any narration, there is a constant heaping up of facts, made about equally
significant by the way of telling them, a hasty delineation of characters,
and all the incidents moving on as in the fifth act of a confused tragedy,
the mind and memory refuse to be so treated; and the reading ends in
nothing but a very slight and inaccurate acquaintance with the mere
husk of the history. You cannot epitomise the knowledge that it
would take years to acquire into a few volumes that may be read in as
many weeks.</p>
<p>The most likely way of attracting men’s attention to historical
subjects will be by presenting them with small portions of history,
of great interest, thoroughly examined. This may give them the
habit of applying thought and criticism to historical matters.</p>
<p>For, as it is, how are people interested in history? and how do they
master its multitudinous assemblage of facts? Mostly, perhaps,
in this way. A man cares about some one thing, or person, or event,
and plunges into its history, really wishing to master it. This
pursuit extends: other points of research are taken up by him at other
times. His researches begin to intersect. He finds a connection
in things. The texture of his historic acquisitions gradually
attains some substance and colour; and so at last he begins to have
some dim notions of the myriads of men who came, and saw, and did not
conquer - only struggled on as they best might, some of them - and are
not.</p>
<p>When we are considering how history should be read, the main thing
perhaps is, that the person reading should desire to know what he is
reading about, not merely to have read the books that tell of it.
The most elaborate and careful historian must omit, or pass lightly
over, many points of his subject. He writes for all readers, and
cannot indulge private fancies. But history has its particular
aspect for each man: there must be portions which he may be expected
to dwell upon. And everywhere, even where the history is most
laboured, the reader should have something of the spirit of research
which was needful for the writer: if only so much as to ponder well
the words of the writer. That man reads history, or anything else,
at great peril of being thoroughly misled, who has no perception of
any truthfulness except that which can be fully ascertained by reference
to facts; who does not in the least perceive the truth, or the reverse,
of a writer’s style, of his epithets, of his reasoning, of his
mode of narration. In life, our faith in any narration is much
influenced by the personal appearance, voice, and gesture of the person
narrating. There is some part of all these things in his writing;
and you must look into that well before you can know what faith to give
him. One man may make mistakes in names, and dates, and references,
and yet have a real substance of truthfulness in him, a wish to enlighten
himself and then you. Another may not be wrong in his facts, but
have a declamatory or sophistical vein in him, much to be guarded against.
A third may be both inaccurate and untruthful, caring not so much for
anything as to write his book. And if the reader cares only to
read it, sad work they make between them of the memories of former days.</p>
<p>In studying history, it must be borne in mind that a knowledge is
necessary of the state of manners, customs, wealth, arts, and science
at the different periods treated of. The text of civil history
requires a context of this knowledge in the mind of the reader.
For the same reason, some of the main facts of the geography of the
countries in question should be present to him. If we are ignorant
of these aids to history, all history is apt to seem alike to us.
It becomes merely a narrative of men of our own time, in our own country;
and then we are prone to expect the same views and conduct from them
that we do from our contemporaries. It is true that the heroes
of antiquity have been represented on the stage in bag-wigs, and the
rest of the costume of our grandfathers: but it was the great events
of their lives that were thus told - the crisis of their passions -
and when we are contemplating the representation of great passions and
their consequences, all minor imagery is of little moment. In
a long-drawn narrative, however, the more we have in our minds of what
concerned the daily life of the people we read about, the better.
And in general it may be said that history, like travelling, gives a
return in proportion to the knowledge that a man brings to it.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>III. BY WHOM HISTORY SHOULD BE WRITTEN.</p>
<p>Before entering directly on this part of the subject, it is desirable
to consider a little the difficulties in the way of writing history.
We all know the difficulty of getting at the truth of a matter which
happened yesterday, and about which we can examine the living actors
upon oath. But in history the most significant things may lack
the most important part of their evidence. The people who were
making history were not thinking of the convenience of future writers
of history. Often the historian must contrive to get his insight
into matters from evidence of men and things which is like bad pictures
of them. The contemporary, if he knew the man, said of the picture,
“I should have known it, but it has very little of him in it.”
The poor historian, with no original before him, has to see through
the bad picture into the man. Then, supposing our historian rich
in well-selected evidence - I say well-selected, because, as students
tell us, for many an historian one authority is of the same weight as
another, provided they are both of the same age; still, how difficult
is narration even to the man who is rich in well-selected evidence.
What a tendency there is to round off a narrative into falsehood; or
else by parenthesis to destroy its pith and continuity. Again,
the historian knows the end of many of the transactions he narrates.
If he did not, how differently often he would narrate them. It
would be a most instructive thing to give a man the materials for the
account of a great transaction, stopping short of the end, and then
see how different would be his account from the ordinary ones.
Fools have been hardly dealt with in the saying that the event is their
master (“eventus stultorum magister”), seeing how it rules
us all. And in nothing more than in history. The event is
always present to our minds; along the pathways to it, the historian
and the moralist have walked till they are beaten pathways, and we imagine
that they were so to the men who first went along them. Indeed,
we almost fancy that these ancestors of ours, looking along the beaten
path, foresaw the event as we do; whereas, they mostly stumbled upon
it suddenly in the forest. This knowledge of the end we must,
therefore, put down as one of the most dangerous pitfalls which beset
the writers of history. Then consider the difficulty in the “composition,”
to use an artist’s word, of our historian’s picture.
Before both the artist and the historian lies Nature as far as the horizon;
how shall they choose that portion of it which has some unity and which
shall represent the rest? What method is needful in the grouping
of facts; what learning, what patience, what accuracy!</p>
<p>By whom, then, should history be written? In the first place,
by men of some experience in real life; who have acted and suffered;
who have been in crowds, and seen, perhaps felt, how madly men can care
about nothings; who have observed how much is done in the world in an
uncertain manner, upon sudden impulses and very little reason; and who,
therefore, do not think themselves bound to have a deep-laid theory
for all things. They should be men who have studied the laws of
the affections, who know how much men’s opinions depend on the
time in which they live, how they vary with their age and their position.
To make themselves historians, they should also have considered the
combinations amongst men and the laws that govern such things; for there
are laws. Moreover our historians, like most men who do great
things, must combine in themselves qualities which are held to belong
to opposite natures; must at the same time be patient in research and
vigorous in imagination, energetic and calm, cautious and enterprising.
Such historians, wise, as we may suppose they will be, about the affair
of other men, may, let us hope, be sufficiently wise about their own
affairs to understand that no great work can be done without great labour,
that no great labour ought to look for its reward. But my readers
will exclaim as Rasselas to Imlac on hearing the requisites for a poet,
“Enough! thou hast convinced me that no human being can ever be
an historian. Proceed with thy narration.”</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>IV. HOW HISTORY SHOULD BE WRITTEN.</p>
<p>One of the first things in writing history is for the historian to
recollect that it is history he is writing. The narrative must
not be oppressed by reflections, even by wise ones. Least of all
should the historian suffer himself to become entangled by a theory
or a system. If he does, each fact is taken up by him in a particular
way: those facts that cannot be so handled cease to be his facts, and
those that offer themselves conveniently are received too fondly by
him.</p>
<p>Then, although our historian must not be mastered by system, he must
have some way of taking up his facts and of classifying them.
They must not be mere isolated units in his eyes, else he is mobbed
by them. And a man in the midst of a crowd, though he may know
the names and nature of all the crowd, cannot give an account of their
doings. Those who look down from the housetop must do that.</p>
<p>But, above all things, the historian must get out of his own age
into the time in which he is writing. Imagination is as much needed
for the historian as the poet. You may combine bits of books with
other bits of books, and so make some new combinations, and this may
be done accurately, and, in general, much of the subordinate preparation
for history may be accomplished without any great effort of imagination.
But to write history in any large sense of the words, you must be able
to comprehend other times. You must know that there is a right
and wrong which is not your right and wrong, but yet stands upon the
right and wrong of all ages and all hearts. You must also appreciate
the outward life and colours of the period you write about. Try
to think how the men you are telling of would have spent a day, what
were their leading ideas, what they cared about. Grasp the body
of the time, and give it to us. If not, and these men could look
at your history, they would say, “This is all very well; we daresay
some of these things did happen; but we were not thinking of these things
all day long. It does not represent us.”</p>
<p>After enlarging upon this great requisite, imagination, it seems
somewhat prosaic to come down to saying that history requires accuracy.
But I think I hear the sighs, and sounds more harsh than sighing, of
those who have ever investigated anything, and found by dire experience
the deplorable inaccuracy which prevails in the world. And, therefore,
I would say to the historian almost as the first suggestion, “Be
accurate; do not make false references, do not mis-state: and men, if
they get no light from you, will not execrate you. You will not
stand in the way, and have to be explained and got rid of.”</p>
<p>Another most important matter in writing history, and that indeed
in which the art lies, is the method of narrating. This is a thing
almost beyond rules, like the actual execution in music or painting.
A man might have fairness, accuracy, an insight into other times, great
knowledge of facts, some power even of arranging them, and yet make
a narrative out of it all, so protracted here, so huddled together there,
the purpose so buried or confused, that men would agree to acknowledge
the merit of the book and leave it unread. There must be a natural
line of associations for the narrative to run along. The separate
threads of the narrative must be treated separately, and yet the subject
not be dealt with sectionally, for that is not the way in which the
things occurred. The historian must, therefore, beware that those
divisions of the subject which he makes for our ease and convenience,
do not induce him to treat his subject in a flimsy manner. He
must not make his story easy where it is not so.</p>
<p>After all, it is not by rule that a great history is to be written.
Most thinkers agree that the main object for the historian is to get
an insight into the things which he tells of, and then to tell them
with the modesty of a man who is in the presence of great events; and
must speak about them carefully, simply, and with but little of himself
or of his affections thrown into the narration.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p>V. HOW GOOD WRITERS OF HISTORY SHOULD BE CALLED FORTH, AIDED,
AND REWARDED.</p>
<p>Mainly by history being properly read. The direct ways of commanding
excellence of any kind are very few, if any. When a State has
found out its notable men, it should reward them, and will show its
worthiness by its measure and mode of reward. But it cannot purchase
them. It may do something in the way of aiding them. In
history, for instance, the records of a nation may be discreetly managed,
and some of the minor work, therefore, done to the hand of the historian.
But the most likely method to ensure good historians is to have a fit
audience for them. And this is a very difficult matter.
In works of general literature, the circle of persons capable of judging
is large; even in works of science or philosophy it is considerable:
but in history, it is a very confined circle. To the general body
of readers, whether the history they read is true or not is in no way
perceptible. It is quite as amusing to them when it is told in
one way as in another. There is always mischief in error: but
in this case the mischief is remote, or seems so. For men of ordinary
culture, even if of much intelligence, the difficulty of discerning
what is true or false in the histories they read makes it a matter of
the highest duty for those few persons who can give us criticism on
historical works, at least to save us from insolent and mendacious carelessness
in historical writers, if not by just encouragement to secure for nations
some results not altogether unworthy of the great enterprise which the
writing of history holds out itself to be. “Hujus enim fidei
exempla majorum, vicissitudines rerum, fundamenta prudentiæ civilis,
hominum denique nomen et fama commissa sunt.” <a name="citation183"></a><a href="#footnote183">{183}</a></p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Just wait a minute for me, and do not talk
about the essay till I come back. I am going for Anster’s
<i>Faust</i>.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. What has Ellesmere got in his head?</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I see. There is a passage where Faust,
in his most discontented mood, falls foul of history - in his talk to
Wagner, if I am not mistaken.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. How beautiful it is this evening! Look
at that yellow-green near the sunset.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. The very words that Coleridge uses.
I always think of them when I see that tint.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I daresay his words were in my mind, but I
have forgotten what you allude to.</p>
<p>Milverton.</p>
<p> “O Lady! in this wan and heartless
mood,<br /> To other thoughts by
yonder throstle woo’d,<br /> All
this long eve, so balmy and serene,<br /> Have
I been gazing on the western sky,<br /> And
its peculiar tint of yellow-green:<br /> And
still I gaze - and with how blank an eye!<br /> And
those thin clouds above, in flakes and bars,<br /> That
give away their motion to the stars;<br /> Those
stars that glide behind them or between,<br /> Now
sparkling, now bedimmed, but always seen:<br /> Yon
crescent Moon as fixed as if it grew<br /> In
its own cloudless, starless lake of blue;<br /> I
see them all so excellently fair,<br /> I
see, not feel how beautiful they are.”</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Admirable! In the <i>Ode to Dejection</i>,
is it not? where, too, there are those lines,</p>
<p> “O Lady! we receive but what
we give,<br /> And in our life alone
does Nature live.”</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. But here comes Ellesmere with triumphant
look. You look as jovial, my dear Ellesmere, as if you were a
Bentley that had found a false quantity in a Boyle.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Listen and perpend, my historical friends.</p>
<p> “To us, my friend, the times
that are gone by<br /> Are a mysterious
book, sealed with seven seals:<br /> That
which you call the spirit of ages past<br /> Is
but, in truth, the spirit of some few authors<br /> In
which those ages are beheld reflected,<br /> With
what distortion strange heaven only knows.<br /> Oh!
often, what a toilsome thing it is<br /> This
study of thine - at the first glance we fly it.<br /> A
mass of things confusedly heaped together;<br /> A
lumber-room of dusty documents,<br /> Furnished
with all approved court-precedents<br /> And
old traditional maxims! History!<br /> Facts
dramatised say rather - action - plot - <br /> Sentiment,
everything the writer’s own,<br /> As
it bests fits the web-work of his story,<br /> With
here and there a solitary fact<br /> Of
consequence, by those grave chroniclers,<br /> Pointed
with many a moral apophthegm,<br /> And
wise old saws, learned at the puppet-shows.”</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes; admirable lines; they describe to the
life the very faults we have been considering as the faults of badly-written
histories. I do not see that they do much more.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>.</p>
<p> “To us, my friend, the times
that are gone by<br /> Are a mysterious
book.” - </p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Those two first lines are the full expression
of Faust’s discontent - unmeasured as in the presence of a weak
man who could not check him. But, if you come to look at the matter
closely, you will see that the time present is also in some sense a
sealed book to us. Men that we live with daily we often think
as little of as we do of Julius Cæsar, I was going to say - but
we know much less of them than of him.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I did not mean to say that Faust spoke my
sentiments about history in general. Still, there are periods
of history which we have very few authors to tell us about, and I daresay
in some of those cases the colouring of their particular minds gives
us a false idea of the whole age they lived in.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. This may have happened, certainly.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. We must be careful not to expect too much
from the history of past ages, as a means of understanding the present
age. There is something wanted besides the preceding history to
understand each age. Each individual life may have a problem of
its own, which all other biography accurately set down for us might
not enable us to work out. So of each age. It has something
in it not known before, and tends to a result which is not down in any
books.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Yet history must be of greatest use in discerning
this tendency.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Yes; but the Wagner sort of pedant would
get entangled in his round of history - in his historical resemblances.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Now, Milverton, if you were called upon to
say what are the peculiar characteristics of this age, what should you
say?</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. One of Dunsford’s questions this, requiring
a stout quarto volume with notes in answer.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I would rather wait till I was called upon.
I am apt to feel, after I have left off describing the character of
any individual man, as if I had only just begun. And I do not
see the extent of discourse that would be needful in attempting to give
the characteristics of an age.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I think you are prudent to avoid answering
Dunsford’s question. For my own part, I should prefer giving
an account of the age we live in after we have come to the end of it
- in the true historical fashion. And so, Dunsford, you must wait
for my notions.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I am afraid, Milverton, if you were to write
history, you would never make up your mind to condemn anybody.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I hope I should not be so inconclusive.
I certainly do dislike to see any character, whether of a living or
a dead person, disposed of in a summary way.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. For once I will come to the rescue of Milverton.
I really do not see that a man’s belief in the extent and variety
of human character, and in the difficulty of appreciating the circumstances
of life, should prevent him from writing history - from coming to some
conclusions. Of course such a man is not likely to write a long
course of history; but that I hold has been a frequent error in historians
- that they have taken up subjects too large for them.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. If there is as much to be said about men’s
character and conduct as I think there mostly is, why should we be content
with shallow views of them? Take the outward form of these hills
and valleys before us. When we have seen them a few times, we
think we know them, but are quite mistaken. Approaching from another
quarter, it is almost new ground to us. It is a long time before
you master the outward form and semblance of any small piece of country
that has much life and diversity in it. I often think of this,
applying it to our little knowledge of men. Now, look there a
moment: you see that house; close behind it is apparently a barren tract.
In reality there is nothing of the kind there. A fertile valley
with a great river in it, as you know, is between that house and the
moors. But the plane of those moors and of the house is coincident
from our present point of view. Had we not, as educated men, some
distrust of the conclusions of our senses, we should be ready to swear
that there was a lonely house on the border of the moors. It is
the same in judging of men. We see a man connected with a train
of action which is really not near him, absolutely foreign to him, perhaps,
but in our eyes that is what he is always connected with. If there
were not a Being who understands us immeasurably better than other men
can, immeasurably better than we do ourselves, we should be badly off.</p>
<p>Such precautionary thoughts as these must be useful, I contend.
They need not make us indifferent to character, or prevent us from forming
judgments where we must form them, but they show us what a wide thing
we are talking about when we are judging the life and nature of a man.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I am sure, Dunsford, you are already convinced:
you seldom want more than a slight pretext for going over to the charitable
side of things. You are only afraid of not dealing stoutly enough
with bad things and people. Do not be afraid though. As
long as you have me to abuse, you will say many unjust things against
me, you know, so that you may waste yourself in good thoughts about
the rest of the world, past and present. Do you know the lawyer’s
story I had in my mind then? “Many times when I have had
a good case,” he said, “I have failed; but then I have often
succeeded with bad cases. And so justice is done.”</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. To return to the subject. It is not
a sort of equalising want of thought about men that I desire; only not
to be rash in a matter that requires all our care and prudence.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Well, I believe I am won over. But now
to another point. I think, Milverton, that you have said hardly
anything about the use of history as an incentive to good deeds and
a discouragement to evil ones.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. I ought to have done so. Bolingbroke
gives in his “Letters on History,” talking of this point,
a passage from Tacitus, “Præcipuum munus annalium,”
- can you go on with it, Dunsford?</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Yes, I think I can. It is a passage
I have often seen quoted. “Præcipuum munus annalium,
reor, ne virtutes sileantur; utque pravis dictis factisque ex posteritate
et infamiâ metus sit.”</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well done; Dunsford may have invented it,
though, for aught that we know, Milverton, and be passing himself off
upon us for Tacitus.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Then Bolingbroke goes on to say (I wish I
could give you his own flowing words), that the great duty of history
is to form a tribunal like that amongst the Egyptians which Diodorus
tells of, where both common men and princes were tried after their deaths,
and received appropriate honour or disgrace. The sentence was
pronounced, he says, too late to correct or to recompense; but it was
pronounced in time to render examples of general instruction to mankind.
Now, what I was going to remark upon this is, that Bolingbroke understates
his case. History well written is a present correction, and a
foretaste of recompense, to the man who is now struggling with difficulties
and temptations, now overcast by calumny and cloudy misrepresentation.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Yes; many a man makes an appeal to posterity
which will never come before the court; but if there were no such court
of appeal - </p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. A man’s conviction that justice will
be done to him in history is a secondary motive, and not one which,
of itself, will compel him to do just and great things; but, at any
rate, it forms one of the benefits that flow from history, and it becomes
stronger as histories are better written. Much may be said against
care for fame; much also against care for present repute. There
is a diviner impulse than either at the doing of any actions that are
much worth doing. As a correction, however, this anticipation
of the judgment of history may really be very powerful. It is
a great enlightenment of conscience to read the opinions of men on deeds
similar to those we are engaged in or meditating.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I think Bolingbroke’s idea, which I
imagine was more general than yours, is more important: namely, that
this judicial proceeding, mentioned by Diodorus Siculus, gave significant
lessons to all people, not merely to those who had any chance of having
their names in history.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Certainly: for this is one of Bolingbroke’s
chief points, if I recollect rightly.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Our conversations are much better things
than your essays, Milverton.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Of course, I am bound to say so: but what
made you think of that now?</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Why, I was thinking how in talk we can know
exactly where we agree or differ. But I never like to interrupt
the essay. I never know when it would come to an end if I did.
And so it swims on like a sermon, having all its own way: one cannot
put in an awkward question in a weak part, and get things looked at
in various ways.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. I suppose, then, Ellesmere, you would like
to interrupt sermons.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Why, yes, sometimes - do not throw sticks
at me, Dunsford.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Well, it is absurd to be angry with you; because
if you long to interrupt Milverton with his captious perhapses and probablys,
of course you will be impatient with discourses which do, to a certain
extent, assume that the preacher and the hearers are in unison upon
great matters.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. I am afraid to say anything about sermons,
for fear of the argumentum baculinum from Dunsford; for many essay writers,
like Milverton, delight to wind up their paragraphs with complete little
aphorisms - shutting up something certainly, but shutting out something
too. I could generally pause upon them a little.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Of course one may err, Ellesmere, in too
much aphorising as in too much of anything. But your argument
goes against all expression of opinion, which must be incomplete, especially
when dealing with matters that cannot be circumscribed by exact definitions.
Otherwise, a code of wisdom might be made which the fool might apply
as well as the wisest man. Even the best proverb, though often
the expression of the widest experience in the choicest language, can
be thoroughly misapplied. It cannot embrace the whole of the subject,
and apply in all cases like a mathematical formula. Its wisdom
lies in the ear of the hearer.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well, I not know that there is anything more
to say about the essay. I suppose you are aware, Dunsford, that
Milverton does not intend to give us any more essays for some time.
He is distressing his mind about some facts which he wants to ascertain
before he will read any more to us. I imagine we are to have something
historical next.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Something in which historical records are
useful.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Really it is wonderful to see how beautifully
human nature accommodates itself to anything, even to the listening
to essays. I shall miss them.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. You may miss the talk before and after.</p>
<p><i>Ellesmere</i>. Well, there is no knowing how much of that
is provoked (provoked is a good word, is it not?) by the essays.</p>
<p><i>Dunsford</i>. Then, for the present, we have come to an
end of our readings.</p>
<p><i>Milverton</i>. Yes, but I trust at no distant time to have
something more to try your critical powers and patience upon.
I hope that that old tower will yet see us meet together here on many
a sunny day, discussing various things in friendly council.</p>
<p> -----</p>
<p>NOTES.</p>
<p><a name="footnote12"></a><a href="#citation12">{12}</a> See <i>Statesman</i>,
p. 30.</p>
<p><a name="footnote42"></a><a href="#citation42">{42}</a> The passage
which must have been alluded to is this: “The stricter tenets
of Calvinism, which allow no medium between grace and reprobation, and
doom man to eternal punishment for every breach of the moral law, as
an equal offence against Infinite truth and justice, proceed (like the
paradoxical doctrine of the Stoics), from taking a half-view of this
subject, and considering man as amenable only to the dictates of his
understanding and his conscience, and not excusable from the temptations
and frailty of human ignorance and passion. The mixing up of religion
and morality together, or the making us accountable for every word,
thought, or action, under no less a responsibility than our everlasting
future welfare or misery, has also added incalculably to the difficulties
of self-knowledge, has superinduced a violent and spurious state of
feeling, and made it almost impossible to distinguish the boundaries
between the true and false, in judging of human conduct and motives.
A religious man is afraid of looking into the state of his soul, lest
at the same time he should reveal it to heaven; and tries to persuade
himself that by shutting his eyes to his true character and feelings,
they will remain a profound secret, both here and hereafter.”</p>
<p><a name="footnote53"></a><a href="#citation53">{53}</a> This was
one of the passages which Milverton afterwards read to us:-</p>
<p>“Thus, however much may be gained for the world as a whole
by this fragmentary cultivation, it is not to be denied that the individuals
whom it befalls are cursed for the benefit of the world. An athletic
frame, it is true, is fashioned by gymnastic exercises; but a form of
beauty only by free and uniform action. Just so the exertions
of single talents can create extraordinary men indeed; but happy and
perfect men only by their uniform temperature. And in what relation
should we stand, then, to the past and coming ages, if the cultivation
of human nature made necessary such a sacrifice? We should have
been the slaves of humanity, and drudged for her century after century,
and stamped upon our mutilated natures the humiliating traces of our
bondage - that the coming race might nurse its moral healthfulness in
blissful leisure, and unfold the free growth of its humanity!</p>
<p>“But can it be intended that man should neglect himself for
any particular design? Ought Nature to deprive us, by its design,
of a perfection which Reason, by its own, prescribes to us? Then
it must be false that the development of single faculties makes the
sacrifice of totality necessary; or, if indeed the law of Nature presses
thus heavily, it becomes us to restore, by a higher art, this totality
in our nature which art has destroyed.” - <i>The Philosophical
and Æsthetical Letters and Essays of</i> SCHILLER, <i>Translated
by</i> J. WEISS, pp. 74, 75.</p>
<p><a name="footnote93"></a><a href="#citation93">{93}</a> Madame Necker
de Saussure’s maxim about firmness with children has suggested
the above. “Ce que plie ne peut servir d’appui, et
l’enfant veut être appuyé. Non-seulement il
en a besoin, mais il le désire, mais sa tendresse la plus constante
n’est qu’à ce prix. Si vous lui faites l’effet
d’un autre enfant, si vous partagez ses passions, ses vacillations
continuelles, si vous lui rendez tous ses mouvements en les augmentant,
soit par la contrariété, soit par un excès de complaisance,
il pourra se servir de vous comme d’un jouet, mais non être
heureux en votre présence; il pleurera, se mutinera, et bientôt
le souvenir d’un temps de désordre et d’humeur se
liera avec votre idée. Vous n’avez pas été
le soutien de votre enfant, vous ne l’avez pas préservé
de cette fluctuation perpétuelle de la volonté, maladie
des êtres faibles et livrés à une imagination vive;
vous n’avez assuré ni sa paix, ni sa sagesse, ni son bonheur,
pourquoi vous croirait-il sa mère.” - <i>L’Education
Progressive</i>, vol. i., p. 228.</p>
<p><a name="footnote116a"></a><a href="#citation116a">{116a}</a> See
<i>Health of Towns Report</i>, vol. i., p. 336. A similar result
may be deduced from a similar table made by the Rev. J. Clay, of Preston.
See the same Report and vol., p. 175.</p>
<p><a name="footnote116b"></a><a href="#citation116b">{116b}</a> See
<i>Health of Towns Report</i>, vol. i., p. 75.</p>
<p><a name="footnote117a"></a><a href="#citation117a">{117a}</a> See
Dr. Arnott’s letter, <i>Claims of Labour</i>, p. 282.</p>
<p><a name="footnote117b"></a><a href="#citation117b">{117b}</a> By
zinc ventilators, for instance, in the windows and openings into the
flues at the top of the rooms. See <i>Health of Towns Report</i>,
1844, vol. i., pp. 76, 77. Mr. Coulhart’s evidence.
- <i>Ibid</i>., pp. 307, 308.</p>
<p><a name="footnote117c"></a><a href="#citation117c">{117c}</a> There
are several thousand gratings to sewers and drains which are utterly
useless on account of their position, and positively injurious from
their emanations. - Mr. Guthrie’s evidence. - <i>Ibid</i>., vol.
ii., p. 255.</p>
<p><a name="footnote118"></a><a href="#citation118">{118}</a> Mr. Wood
states that the masters and mistresses were generally ignorant of the
depressing and unhealthy effects of the atmosphere which surrounded
them, and he mentions the case of the mistress of a dame-school who
replied, when he pointed out this to her, “that the children thrived
best in dirt!” - <i>Health of Towns Report</i>, vol. i., pp. 146,
147.</p>
<p><a name="footnote126"></a><a href="#citation126">{126}</a> See “The
Fair Maid of Perth.”</p>
<p><a name="footnote161"></a><a href="#citation161">{161}</a> See “Health
of Towns Report,” 1844, vol. i., p. 44.</p>
<p><a name="footnote183"></a><a href="#citation183">{183}</a> Bacon,
<i>de Augmentis Scientiarum</i>.</p>
<div class="GutenbergBlankLines3"><br /><br /><br /></div>
<p>End of the Project Gutenberg etext of Friends in Council</p>
<p>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK, FRIENDS IN COUNCIL (FIRST SERIES) ***</p>
<pre>
******This file should be named frcc10h.htm or frcc10h.zip******
Corrected EDITIONS of our EBooks get a new NUMBER, frcc11h.htm
VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, frcc10ah.htm
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we usually do not
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
We are now trying to release all our eBooks one year in advance
of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections,
even years after the official publication date.
Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til
midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
The official release date of all Project Gutenberg eBooks is at
Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A
preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
and editing by those who wish to do so.
Most people start at our Web sites at:
http://gutenberg.net or
http://promo.net/pg
These Web sites include award-winning information about Project
Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!).
Those of you who want to download any eBook before announcement
can get to them as follows, and just download by date. This is
also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter.
http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext04 or
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext04
Or /etext03, 02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90
Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
as it appears in our Newsletters.
Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)
We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The
time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
to get any eBook selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. Our
projected audience is one hundred million readers. If the value
per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
million dollars per hour in 2002 as we release over 100 new text
files per month: 1240 more eBooks in 2001 for a total of 4000+
We are already on our way to trying for 2000 more eBooks in 2002
If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
will reach over half a trillion eBooks given away by year's end.
The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away 1 Trillion eBooks!
This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.
Here is the briefest record of our progress (* means estimated):
eBooks Year Month
1 1971 July
10 1991 January
100 1994 January
1000 1997 August
1500 1998 October
2000 1999 December
2500 2000 December
3000 2001 November
4000 2001 October/November
6000 2002 December*
9000 2003 November*
10000 2004 January*
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created
to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium.
We need your donations more than ever!
As of February, 2002, contributions are being solicited from people
and organizations in: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
We have filed in all 50 states now, but these are the only ones
that have responded.
As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list
will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states.
Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state.
In answer to various questions we have received on this:
We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally
request donations in all 50 states. If your state is not listed and
you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have,
just ask.
While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are
not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting
donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to
donate.
International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about
how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made
deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are
ways.
Donations by check or money order may be sent to:
PROJECT GUTENBERG LITERARY ARCHIVE FOUNDATION
809 North 1500 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment
method other than by check or money order.
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by
the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN
[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154. Donations are
tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law. As fund-raising
requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be
made and fund-raising will begin in the additional states.
We need your donations more than ever!
You can get up to date donation information online at:
http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html
***
If you can't reach Project Gutenberg,
you can always email directly to:
Michael S. Hart hart@pobox.com
Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message.
We would prefer to send you information by email.
**The Legal Small Print**
(Three Pages)
***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS**START***
Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers.
They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
your copy of this eBook, even if you got it for free from
someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how
you may distribute copies of this eBook if you want to.
*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS EBOOK
By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
eBook, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive
a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this eBook by
sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
you got it from. If you received this eBook on a physical
medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.
ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM EBOOKS
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBooks,
is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth
below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this eBook
under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.
Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market
any commercial products without permission.
To create these eBooks, the Project expends considerable
efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
works. Despite these efforts, the Project's eBooks and any
medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other
things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
disk or other eBook medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may
receive this eBook from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook) disclaims
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
If you discover a Defect in this eBook within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
time to the person you received it from. If you received it
on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
copy. If you received it electronically, such person may
choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
receive it electronically.
THIS EBOOK IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
TO THE EBOOK OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
may have other legal rights.
INDEMNITY
You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation,
and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated
with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including
legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following that you do or cause: [1] distribution of this eBook,
[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the eBook,
or [3] any Defect.
DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by
disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
or:
[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this
requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
eBook or this "small print!" statement. You may however,
if you wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable
binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
including any form resulting from conversion by word
processing or hypertext software, but only so long as
*EITHER*:
[*] The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
does *not* contain characters other than those
intended by the author of the work, although tilde
(~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
be used to convey punctuation intended by the
author, and additional characters may be used to
indicate hypertext links; OR
[*] The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at
no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
form by the program that displays the eBook (as is
the case, for instance, with most word processors);
OR
[*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
or other equivalent proprietary form).
[2] Honor the eBook refund and replacement provisions of this
"Small Print!" statement.
[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the
gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you
don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are
payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
periodic) tax return. Please contact us beforehand to
let us know your plans and to work out the details.
WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of
public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine readable form.
The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses.
Money should be paid to the:
"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
hart@pobox.com
[Portions of this eBook's header and trailer may be reprinted only
when distributed free of all fees. Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by
Michael S. Hart. Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be
used in any sales of Project Gutenberg eBooks or other materials be
they hardware or software or any other related product without
express permission.]
*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS*Ver.02/11/02*END*
</pre></body>
</html>
|
