Project Gutenberg Australia



Title:      Good-bye to Western Culture (1930)
Author:     Norman Douglas
* A Project Gutenberg of Australia eBook *
eBook No.:  0300291.txt
Edition:    1
Language:   English
Character set encoding:     Latin-1(ISO-8859-1)--8 bit
Date first posted:          March 2003
Date most recently updated: March 2003

Project Gutenberg of Australia eBooks are created from printed editions
which are in the public domain in Australia, unless a copyright notice
is included. We do NOT keep any eBooks in compliance with a particular
paper edition.

Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing this
file.

This eBook is made available at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg of Australia License which may be viewed online at
http://gutenberg.net.au/licence.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Project Gutenberg of Australia eBook

Title:      Good-bye to Western Culture (1930)
Author:     Norman Douglas




Some Footnotes on East and West



A GOOD while ago, as I was stepping into the train, a friend who had
come to see me off put into my hands a book and said:

"Have a look at this. Very rich, in places. Pure sensationalism, of
course; she wants to get herself talked about. I think you'll enjoy
it. If not, just throw it out of the window."

That is how I came to read _Mother India_, while the train crawled
slowly through a level, dried-up landscape under the cobalt sky of
early autumn. It was a drowsy afternoon; the corn had been cut long
ago, the country wore an air of exhaustion, and everything seemed half
asleep. And still we panted forwards, past white farmhouses and fields
of yellow stubble, stopping at every station. _Mother India_ is a
fairly long book; this was a fairly long journey, hot and tedious.

"Pure sensationalism," it soon became evident, was not quite correct.
If you poke your nose into unsavoury corners, the result is bound to
be more or less sensational. It struck me that the author had
performed in business-like fashion her job of disembowelling old
Mother India, though some of her arguments, I felt sure, would
certainly be challenged--as indeed they were. In other circumstances I
should have read it with greater attention (I did, later on).

That railway carriage was not conducive to the reading of a book like
this. The heat, the proximity to objectionable fellow-creatures,
children squalling in the next compartment, the screeching of
machinery, the perpetual coming and going, the banging of doors, the
whistling: what a coarse, undignified mode of travel! Here we were,
cooped up like hens in a basket; open the windows, and clouds of
noisome smoke pour in; shut them, and you are suffocated. A man
sitting opposite me was intent upon some newspaper article; I caught
sight of the heading "Indemnity." Indemnity--reparations; it was all
we could talk about then, it is all we can talk about now; an endless,
unbecoming haggle.... And the red velvet seats, my pet aversion.
Velvet in the brooding heat of August! Here was a sample of the
unnecessary discomfort which we Europeans endure all day long in one
form or another; that railway trip, a trifle in itself, made me
resentful against the Western world and its institutions, while this
book, with every page I turned, took me further away from them and
conjured up memories of a land where one feels more at ease. As I read
those disclosures, I could not help contrasting the two and thinking:
What she tells of India is all very sad and unpleasant, but--but how
about Europe?

Well, Europe has lost her smile. Moreover, she is growing smaller than
ever; small and explosive and hectic--_balkanized_. An air of
parochial defiance broods over us, signalizing its presence by
offensive aggressions upon liberty. Life in this continent must
present considerable difficulties just now to a really conscientious
person. They who make it their business to evade its laws and
conventions whenever possible are on a different plane; they find
their existence tolerable, and some of them--one, at all events
--would not be sorry if it lasted for ever.

* * *

A FEW observations then scrawled on the margin of _Mother India_ have
now blossomed, or at least expanded, into the following footnotes. The
long interval between the two events may suggest that the idea of this
book was conceived, and again discarded. So it was. Why bother about
the state of Europe? Such tasks should be left to the qualified
Western enthusiast, the world-improver, the dreamer, the eternally
hopeful and eternally muddle-headed. Can the leopard change his spots?
An occasional spasm of lucidity is all we may ever expect. Enlightened
individuals crop up in the most unlikely places and epochs;
enlightened groups of them are as common as a flock of white
blackbirds. The world has grown not only older since Pericles; it has
grown stupider.

The reader will find no suggestion of remedies in these pages. I am
not the stuff of which reformers are made; rather than indulge in that
variety of meddlesomeness I would sweep a crossing. Nine-tenths of the
reformers of humanity have been mischief-makers or humbugs. I have no
desire to be added to the list. A man who reforms himself has
contributed his full share towards the reformation of his neighbour.

Let Europe and Asia do what they please: good luck to them!

I observe, and pass on.

* * *

HERE they are, then--just a few footnotes, a few _asides_ that touch
the fringe of a great problem: East or West? The problem confronts
every one of us and its solution is uncommonly easy. It is a matter of
temperament; it depends, to a large extent, upon whether a man likes
to be flurried or not.

You can be flurried in the East nowadays, and to within an inch of
your life. I am thinking of modern Turkey, which last year, and during
a very brief visit, struck me as the most disagreeable place I had
ever been in. And I perceive that Mr. Harry A. Franck (_The Moslem
Fringe_) has come to the same conclusion after a longer stay in the
country. These poor devils have caught our European disease, and the
symptoms in both cases are identical. A political gale, involving the
usual varieties of cruelty and murder, has subsided into a heavy
ground-swell of morality known as "national regeneration" which, like
other forms of regeneration, is accompanied by depressing phenomena:
restrictions of liberty, police supervision, and all the bureaucratic
inconveniences to which we Europeans are now accustomed. Mr. Franck
has had a good dose of this legalized persecution; he seems to have
passed a great deal of his time at police stations; he has studied
their newly-made legislation and does not hesitate to call some of it
"quite insane."

Will these young Turks be as straightforward as the old ones, as
good-humoured and gentlemanly in their manners? I doubt it, for such
fits of self-consciousness _en masse_ are apt to leave a scar. The
official drilling they entail saps those individual virtues which a
patriarchal upbringing used lovingly to inculcate. Government by
bureaucracy has a familiar flavour in the West; a nation of Oriental
bureaucrats is something new, and a sight to make the angels weep, or
laugh.

* * *

A SIGNIFICANT little fact emerges on page 337 of _Mother India_ in
regard to local epidemics like typhoid, namely, that the natives "from
long consumption of diluted sewage have naturally acquired a degree of
immunity." They have also grown fairly immune to their own poisons of
the intellect which, imported into Europe by people who ought to have
known better, swept over our continent in a devastating epidemic of
unreason called Christianity, from which we Europeans have not yet
acquired immunity. This is a grave moral misdeed to be laid to the
charge of Mother India.

Her scientific crimes are every bit as atrocious. Max Mueller in 1873
was looking for an Indian inscription in which the cypher, the nought,
an Indian invention, occurred for the first time. It would be, he
says, among the most valuable monuments of antiquity, "for from it
would date in reality the beginning of true mathematical science,
impossible without the nought--nay, the beginning of all the exact
sciences to which we owe the discoveries of telescopes, steam engines,
and electric telegraph."

This means that the seed of plagues like Calvinism and the radio come
from over there. Mother India has a good deal on her conscience. Old
people, however, are not troubled with a conscience to the extent of
young ones; they have seen so much! And she is indeed old. At the time
when she invented these tricks we Europeans had not yet begun to paint
ourselves blue. That is a good stretch of years; she ought certainly
to be dead and buried instead of hobbling about as she insists on
doing. She is in her dotage, without a doubt, and terribly stiff in
the joints; anybody would be, at her time of life; it may end in
complete anchylosis--though I think not. She is also pig-headed and
crusted and fixed in a groove; such is the curse of age....

How about Europe? Is Europe grown up yet, and can it take care of
itself? Not for a good many years to come. Europe is still a baby in
its cot--rather a repulsive and fretful brat; all nerves. Moreover, it
seems to be unhappy just now; it has been squealing for the last ten
minutes and cannot tell us what it wants. Always squealing! What is
the matter this time? Smallpox?

Nothing so serious. It has only wetted its bed, as usual. No wonder it
feels uncomfortable, poor little thing. Let us hope a kind friend will
come forward with some violet powder and a change of linen, because
Nurse, also as usual, is engaged in a chat with that policeman round
the corner.

This makes me think that a change of nurse would likewise do no harm.

* * *

THE age of miracles is over, but a man may still have a stroke of luck
now and then. Such a one fell to my lot in February 1898, during my
first visit to India. I was in the Delhi bazaar and trying to conclude
a bargain, begun two days earlier, for an Oriental dagger-hilt of
lapis-lazuli. As is often the case, the ornamental inlaying of gold
and precious stones had already been removed; it was nevertheless a
fine specimen of that particular stone and of that class of work.

Presently we reached a deadlock; the jeweller refused to abate one
single anna more. I was still hesitating, when another man at the back
of the shop rose from his seat, took the thing out of the merchant's
hand and examined it carefully. He was oldish-looking, dressed in
European clothes, too clear-complexioned for a native and too sallow
to be a European. Then he said to me:

"Really, I don't think he is asking too much."

I should have cursed him for his interference, had the words not been
spoken in a tone of quiet, gentlemanly conviction, and with the air of
one who knows what he is talking about.

"Well, I hope you're right," I said, and, still grumbling vigorously,
paid for the article. He went on:

"In a few years' time things of this quality will fetch much more. You
are also in luck just now because of the plague; prices are down....
Now would you like to look at a few more shops? I can make them show
you what they don't show to everybody. Oh, I've nothing to do," he
added, noticing my hesitation. "Nothing whatever! It would be a
pleasure."

Walking along, and looking in at one or two jewellers' shops, we began
to talk about precious stones, and I soon discovered that his
knowledge of them was wide and deep-, he was not an ordinary expert.
He extracted something wrapped in tissue paper out of his waistcoat
pocket and said:

"You seem to be interested in gems. What do you think of this?"

A marvellous sapphire, without a flaw. In size it was not much larger
than a sparrow's egg, but its tint was the perfection of cornflower
blue.

"Siamese," he observed. "And how do you like this--and this--and this?
And _this_?"

Precious stones--the fellow was stuffed with them, and each the
choicest of its kind. Among the rest, I remember to this day a
canary-coloured diamond of about six carats, to obtain which I would
have cut almost anybody's throat. I said:

"You must have five thousand pounds' worth on you."

"A little more, I daresay."

As we were separating he suggested that we should meet again, and told
me his name. It was Jacob; he was born, he said, in the island of
Prinkipo.

"That's queer."

"How so?" he asked.

"Last July I went on a yachting cruise with a friend, Marion Crawford,
who spoke a good deal about a person of your name who was also fond of
gems, and also born in Prinkipo."

"Well, I am Mr. Isaacs."

Crawford often told me that he had gone to India with no intention of
becoming a writer. There he met Jacob, who made such an impression on
him that, just for amusement, he wrote a sketch called "Mr. Isaacs";
an uncle of his, reading the manuscript, insisted on having it
published; thus began Crawford's prosperous career as novelist. This
Anglo-Indian story created some sensation in 1882; it reads a little
thin nowadays, and is streaked with that sententious-ness and
melodrama which mar a good deal of Crawford's work.

So far as I could see, there was not much likeness between the
imaginary Isaacs and the authentic Jacob who was addressing me, save
their love of stones and their affability. Jacob was the
personification of kindness. He always had "nothing whatever to do"
except to show me the intimate life of Delhi from every angle, and to
talk about India past, present, and future. I feel sure that, thanks
to him, I learnt as much in those few days as an ordinary tourist
could have learnt in as many months, for up to that time my knowledge
of India had been derived from a course of lectures on Indian history
preparatory to passing a Civil Service examination, an examination
from which that particular subject was excluded by the authorities at
the last moment--to my considerable regret, as I then knew more about
Holkar and Scindhia than I shall ever know again.

* * *

IF YOU travel from the southermost tip of Ceylon to Darjeeling and
Hardwar and Peshawur you will at least learn this much: that India is
a pretty big place--------

And yet, how fond they are of little things and--as Marion Crawford
notices in that book--of "calling little things by big names"! They
give you a mutton cutlet and call it a chop; they give you shrimps and
call them prawns; they give you a guinea-fowl barely hatched and call
it a quail; they give you limes that are smaller than peas. I once
picked five of them, all on one branch and all of different tints j
they made a charming button-hole. And then, those microscopic knives
and forks--------

Something else soon dawns upon you: India is a gentleman's country.
That does not sound remarkable. It is more than can be said of our
continent. European servants... enough has been talked about them; the
brutes are driving us from our homes into clubs and hotels and
restaurants and out of Europe altogether, although I cannot help
thinking, from the peculiarly bitter complaints about English ones
which are not recent but have gone on for centuries, that there must
be something wrong with their mistresses. I have employed European
servants of varying ages and sexes and nationalities, and of varying
degrees of incapacity and drunkenness and insolence and thievishness.
Not a few were passable; the best of all was an Englishwoman. I think
of Mrs. Partridge with regret; she was both intelligent and devoted.

Of Sita Ram I think with more than regret; his intelligence and
devotion were not of this earth. He was the only servant to whom I
never had to explain anything. He was noiselessness personified. A
grey-haired old man, a man of an alien race--by what obscure but
infallible instinct did he know exactly what I wanted, and when I
wanted it? He was always present if I required him; always invisible
if I felt like being alone. He slept on the outside of my door; when I
woke up at night, he knew it; he woke up too. With a few passes he
could cure my worst insomnia, and send me into a dreamless sleep. If
any European can do that trick at a reasonable figure, let him step
forward. We may come to terms.

One of many unaccountable traits was his affinity with fire. He
handled red-hot embers without apparent discomfort and carried them
from one room to another in his fingers; and it was startling to watch
how, with two wizard breaths, he could charm a blaze into wooden logs
of a hardness unknown in Europe, a hardness to break any knife which
attempted to pierce or splinter them. How was it done? No white man
need try to master this secret; it is beyond the range of European
faculties. And how did he manage to conjure up in the open air, at a
moment's notice, on an overturned flower-pot, a four-course dinner out
of nothing--out of nothing? I am old and well stricken in years; I
have witnessed many so-called mysteries, but Sita Ram's improvised
dinners were the nearest approach to magic I ever saw.

I think we have something to learn from Mother India.

I think we shall never learn it.

* * *

His curries were lovely, and of infinite variety. Thirty-one years
and six months have passed since those days, and it makes me feel like
crying to know that I shall never taste them again.

Go to India, young man, and take Baedeker or Ferguson or the
Mahabharatta, according to your fancy; inspect the Elephanta Caves and
all the rest, and please note this: in your old age the Taj Mahal and
glittering Himalayas must mingle insensibly with other memories and
lose their sharpness of outline, fading away, at last, as a dream. The
vision of curry will remain clear-cut to your dying breath. Curry is
India's gift to mankind; her contribution to human happiness. Curry
atones for all the fatuities of the 108 Upanishads. Go to India, joung
man, and may you find another Sita Ram! He was wonderful in his
curries.

He was wonderful in his death. One day at tea-time he announced that
his daughter had died, and that life had lost interest for him. Next
morning he was dead himself. They told me he must have swallowed his
tongue. It may be true; I tried to find out, but failed. Curiosity--a
kind of affection, I like to think--drove me to the malodorous bazaar,
where I was met by a conspiracy of silence. The native police vowed
they had never heard his name. Then they obligingly made enquiries on
my behalf. The enquiries lasted a week and led to nothing. Nobody
could tell them where he had lived. Nobody had ever seen him. Nobody
knew anything about him.

Illusion?

Illusion it might be, but for the fact that I possess to this day a
small box of Cashmir work which he gave me.

* * *

GO TO the East, young man; leave behind you the frowsy and fidgetty
little hole called Europe. Savour the remedial effects of that other
continent before you are caught in our humiliating machinery; before
you are ticketed and labelled as to your monetary worth to a worthless
"community"; before you are taxed, and overtaxed, for the purpose of
keeping alive thousands of people who ought to be dead.

Get out of Europe! Rectify your values while there is still some
flexibility in your mind, and learn to laugh at the flabby gibberings
of our cultured classes and the comical bestiality of their inferiors,
our nauseating politics and childish social ideals, our moral
hypocrisy that breeds liars, the inquisitorial tyranny of our laws
that breeds cowards, and certain absurd newspapers whose function
consists in persuading us to attach importance to what is not worth
thinking about. Get out of it!

Oriental life engenders self-respect and ease of soul. This is what
makes sensible people home-sick for the East. This is what we
Europeans lack and what we need more than anything else; they are
qualities so rare nowadays that most of us have forgotten what they
mean.

Over-government is killing self-respect, and hustle is killing ease of
soul.

* * *

YET India is full of ills. The remedy? We must raise the educational
level. Once her children have grasped the binomial theorem, all will
be well. Their future careers are assured; in other words, a contented
peasantry will be converted into discontented office-seekers. "Indian
Universities," says Mr. Aldous Huxley, "produce a swarm of graduates
for whom there is nothing to do." And everybody says the same.

How right was the poet Gray when he said that learning should not be
encouraged, because it only draws fools from their obscurity! And how
right was that American who told the author of _Mother India_ that it
was a crime to teach the natives to be clerks, lawyers and politicians
before they had been taught to produce food!

In raising the educational level, what are we really raising? A brood
of cads. The cad is a product of education. You will not find him in
Oriental countries--not until they have enjoyed our advantages of
universal schooling. That is one reason why Hindus are divided into
castes. They will have nothing to do with universal schooling, which
claims to be based on the doctrine that all men are equal and
therefore equally entitled to its benefits, although, as a matter of
fact, it is based on something quite different. Hindus know better.
They know that men are not equal, and that a certain number are by
nature unteachable, because they lack the required outfit. The Western
notion seems to be this: some dogs can learn tricks, therefore all
dogs must learn them. Are we ever going to realize that we have our
unteachables too, and that to keep them in schools is wasting not only
our money but their time? Presumably not. The school-age is
continually being raised. Soon we shall be doing sums when we might be
getting married. Under discipline all the time, and coddled like
little girls! The consequence is that England is full of well-groomed
adolescents of twenty-five, with no more poise or self-reliance than a
Newfoundland puppy.

I have lately gone through two volumes of a certain family history.
Astonishing, how early the ancestors of this family began life, and
what a zest they threw into it! At fourteen they had their University
degree or Army commission or whatever it was; four years later they
were married; by twenty-five, as Popes or Ambassadors, they had
already made provision for a fine progeny of bastards.

That is a well-spent youth.

* * *

IF I were asked what Europe requires at this moment I should say it is
men who can evolve notions independently of other folk, men who can
think without thinking what they are expected to think, men who tend
to diverge from the common rut and are able to contemplate with fresh
eyes what is going on around them. Such men might see what is amiss,
and might discern remedies.

These would be superior men, and somebody has said that all government
is a conspiracy against the superior man. In compulsory education the
State has forged an admirable weapon to this end, since it is the
business of schooling to suppress such men and to crush down the race
till we are all as alike as two peas. Germany before the War had
doubtless the highest educational standard in Europe. What was the
result?

At a critical moment she could produce not a single statesman of
foresight or insight; these qualities had been ground out of her
politicians by hard-and-dry school drilling in their youth. The
decline in German depth and pliability of character, which Germans
themselves observe, has coincided with the speeding-up of their school
curriculum; and I think we shall perceive the same in England. We are
perceiving it! Compulsory European schooling is based not on a desire
for individual welfare, but on international fear and distrust.

* * *

EDUCATION has been raised to a bad eminence, and one or two charges
can be brought against it which contain more than the proverbial grain
of truth. It is a centripetal process; it creates a type instead of a
character; in other words, it instils uniformity, which is an enemy of
civilization. It is a governmental contrivance for inculcating
nationalism, another enemy of civilization. None but a strong nature
can profit by its good effects and defy the bad ones; none but a small
percentage of children recover before middle age, when it is too late,
from that withering strain of application. It frets away their finer
edges and dries up the well-springs of individualism. It destroys
their originality of outlook, their curiosity, their initiative, the
directness of their mental vision. They learn to see with eyes, and to
think with brains, which are not their own. Their impulses, their
conversations--their dreams, I daresay--are standardized; and if not,
a ten years' course of schooling has certainly done its best to attain
that end. Education is a State-controlled manufactory of echoes. The
old Greeks did not share our views on this head. They held that
whoever craves for learning will find it without the help of
school-boards, and that whoever is constructed on other lines should
follow other pursuits. Men in those days were sifted as to their
natural talents--they were allowed to sift themselves, and the result
was a level of intelligence not to be achieved by modern methods.

The system has now become so fashionable that to abolish it may well
be compared to putting back the hands of the clock. What if the clock
is going backwards instead of forwards?

* * *

IT HAS been argued that illiteracy should be suppressed because there
is some connexion between it and criminality. Greater nonsense was
never talked. No criminal worth his salt can afford to be uneducated.
Illiteracy is the privilege of the Chosen Few, even as learning should
be. These people are never cads. They could not be cads if they tried;
they have not had our chances. Restful folk, full of mother-wit.
There are far too few of them. Moreover, they know their business;
illiteracy makes a man observant. I have yet to meet an analphabetic
who could be called a fool. Nor have I ever met a dishonest one;
cheating is risky, if you can neither read nor write.

I sometimes visit one of the few remaining illiterates here, and I
always think he is one of the few remaining gentlemen. He has none of
that pertness and superficiality which education produces among men of
his class. He was put to work barefoot at the age of _six_--working
from 6 A.M. to 8 P.M.; is now seventy-five, and lives with his wife in
a kind of Rowton House, where he cultivates a tiny patch of garden
which has been allotted to his two rooms. This man, you see at once,
is superior to his "educated" fellows. His dignified ease reminds me
of certain Orientals I have known. There is spontaneity in his
utterance; not a chain of cliches more or less laboriously strung
together. That talk of his, clear-cut and original, is like a breath
of fresh air in our education-tainted atmosphere, where everybody says
exactly what you expect him to say. With this man, you never can tell
what he is going to say, because you never can tell what he has been
thinking. Had he been reading the daily paper or the last novel you
could tell at once. His brain has not been addled with such things,
nor with chatter about them. He has employed it to better purpose and
kept a cleaner edge to his wit; a kind of bloom.

A supply of men who have not inhaled that poison-gas of education
which paralyses our nerve-centres of independent thought would be a
national asset in times of stress; a reservoir of sturdy sanity. It
was an analogous consideration which led to the English system of
trial by jury--the control of the expert by common sense.

I am not entering a plea for illiteracy--not every one possesses the
needful qualifications--nor suggesting that our representatives abroad
should be unable to sign their names, although, as a matter of fact,
they seem in pre-examination days, in the days of patronage, to have
been no less efficient and worthy to hold their posts than the skinny
professors whom the Civil Service Commissioners now provide for us. I
think, however, that Imperialism is an undiluted mischief, and that
all its offspring are mischief. One of them is compulsory education.
The chief result of such training on persons unfitted for it is that
it begins by creating wants, and then proceeds to demonstrate that
these wants are needs. Since these needs cannot always be gratified,
it lies at the bottom of many varieties of discontent and unhappiness.
Discontent and unhappiness are evils. This is what the
education-fetich has hitherto accomplished in Europe. For every evil
remedied, it has implanted the germs of ten new ones.

* * *

THERE are in India about 229,000,000 people who can neither read nor
write. The peasants, living in 750,000 villages, belong to this class;
those peasants who are liked by all that know them, and whom the
author of Mother India calls "simple, illiterate, peaceful, kindly,"
and again "dignified, interesting, enlisting people." Not everybody
has these rare and charming characteristics. When a man does possess
them, and also knows his business as thoroughly as the Indian
cultivator, he should be envied of his lot and allowed to enjoy it in
peace. That itch for interference! The Indian peasant is a grown-up
person; he is no mental deficient; he knows what he wants. If he wants
the benefits of education for his children, let him say so--although I
daresay he divines what it will mean. It will mean higher taxes.
Governmental altruism, in India and out of it, always ends in heavier
taxation.

Thirty-three thousand adult white illiterates are living in America,
and American children, somehow or other, still come illiterate into
the world. Compulsory education is supposed to be good enough for
them. And yet, judging by what Messrs. Upton Sinclair, Mencken, and
others have to tell us, the half-civilized American must be
sufficiently alarming; the half-civilized Babu is probably worse; and
when all the cultivators of India have learnt to despise their jobs
and to seek new outlets for their energies, as the half-civilized
English peasantry are doing at this moment with deplorable economic
results for the country--when they have learnt to consider themselves
as good as anybody else because some fool has drilled them up to the
standard of a grocer's assistant, then it will be time (as the
Persians say) to put one's trust in God.

* * *

CRITICS of Hindu illiteracy should not forget that British rule is
largely responsible for it. By the Institutes of Manu, the parent was
obliged to place his child at school in his fourth year. At the
beginning of last century there were schools in every Indian village;
in sweeping away the village system we have simultaneously swept away
the schools. John Bright complained in 1853 that while our Government
had almost wholly overthrown the universally existing native
education, it had done nothing to supply the deficiency (E. Wood: _An
Englishman defends Mother India_, p. 229). Ten years ago only one
penny per head was spent on education in British-ruled India, whereas
Russia was spending between sevenpence and eightpence (H. M. Hynd-man:
_The Awakening of Asia_, p. 218). "One cannot fail to deplore the
rapid decadence, probably more rapid than the official figures show,
of independent educational institutions" (G. T. Garratt: _An Indian
Commentary_, p. 78).

A native State, Baroda, is ahead of British-ruled India in this
respect; even as another such State, Mysore, has abolished the
temple-girls--a measure which our administration will hesitate to
adopt.

* * *

THE pest of nationalism....

It engendered, among other monsters, the Great War; and this, in its
turn, has produced an obnoxious little abortion which is making
England the laughing-stock of the nations: Dora. So many things are
forbidden by law that it would now save time to draw up a list of what
is still allowed. I cull the following well-known case from the
papers:

"In the early hours of yesterday morning 20 detectives, all wearing
evening dress, with red poppies in their button-holes, raided the
luxurious premises in Grafton Street of Chez Victor, one of the most
exclusive supper--and dance-clubs in the West End of London. The
officers arrived in five motor cars, and, in Indian file, passed up
the steps of the club, deposited their hats and coats in the
cloak-room, and marched upstairs to the ball-room. A dance was in
progress at the time, and the detectives seated themselves at the
tables till it was over. Then they [some words illegible] and
proceeded to take down the names of the 40 people who were there,
nearly all of whom were titled folk. It is understood that among those
present at the time were an M.P., a V.C., and a leading actress. The
officers also took samples of the liquids in glasses on the tables,
and, before leaving, interviewed the manager. Mr. Victor Perosino, the
proprietor, was at a loss to account for a visit of this character.
'Chez Victor has been in existence for about four years,' he stated,
(and we have never had any trouble before. The detectives found two or
three glasses on the tables with a little champagne in them.
Everything had been cleared away except those glasses, which my
waiters had overlooked. But the champagne had been served before 12
o'clock. No wine was served after the legal time. The police showed us
every courtesy, and were as little trouble as possible.' Chez Victor
numbers royalty among its patrons, and it is the resort of many highly
placed in Court, diplomatic, and political society."

Has anything more futile ever occurred on earth?

Nearly all of them were titled folk....

What fools they must have looked, these titled folk, V.C.'s and
Parliamentarians!

And why do they put up with such nonsense?

They manage these things better, out East.

* * *

MORE freak-legislation:

"Last Tuesday a woman shopkeeper sold a twopenny packet of cigarettes
'because she needed the money,' and was fined the cost of the
prosecution."

"_Whatever we think of the law we have to administer it_, said the
Mayor of Newark when fining a grocer five shillings yesterday for
selling a loaf of bread at nine o'clock at night."

Can cretinism go further?

Of course it can:

"On Saturday a Paddington confectioner was fined 5 pounds for selling two
pennyworth of cough drops after hours. His defence was that he thought
they were medicine."

Babies. That is what any Oriental would call us.

"More than a score of East-End news-agents were yesterday fined sums
ranging between 10s. and 40s. at Old Street Police Court for selling
newspapers after 8 P.M."

It is to be hoped that such rubbish may soon be a thing of the past,
and that we shall have to look up the files of musty newspapers in
order to believe that it ever could have existed. Meanwhile it is
significant to note that while other European countries have long ago
abolished these restrictions, the Englishman remains too phlegmatic
to get rid of them, although they are a disgrace to the Government
which guaranteed their repeal, an injustice to many, and an annoyance
to all.

Here is a pearl: the Secretary of the Athenaeum Club writing to the
papers to the effect that if a member, even the Prime Minister, asks
for a glass of whisky-and-soda at 11.15 he will not be served.

What a pack of masochists!

* * *

GLANCING through the pages of Mother India one gains the conviction
that the author's indictment of Hinduism is nothing but an indictment
of Christianity. That is the long and short of it. What else could we
expect? East is East, and Christianity is Eastern. If Christ were to
come to earth again, He would undoubtedly prefer life among the Hindus
to life in England or America. More familiar and homelike.... And I
question whether He would insist, even at this hour of the day, on the
teaching of French or algebra. The Kingdom of Heaven lies not in that
direction.

Christian poets, mediaeval and modern, have hymned the charms of
womanhood in moving verse; what the old law-book of Manu says, or
rather sings, about women and maidens has a refinement of beauty which
is not surpassed in any European tongue. And Manu alone, of all
ancient lawgivers, allows for the passionate nature of women and will
not have them treated as frigid creatures: he knew the world! Of the
mother he says that she "exceedeth a thousand fathers in the right to
reverence, and in the function of educator." The scripturally
prescribed course of an Indian woman's life is not more humiliating
than that laid down in our own texts, and its practical working,
despite such horrors as Sati--the authority for which is based on an
altered text--has proved less calamitous. It is well to remember that
Christ Himself was not overpolite to His Mother on a certain occasion,
while Saint Peter and Saint Paul said things about women that were
both unkind and unreasonable.

Now the extreme views of these two holy men may be impugned. I am
inclined to think, at least, that Paul, being an epileptic, cannot
have known much about women, and that Peter, as a married man, may
have known more than was good for him. Be that as it may, it is easy
to realize how much saner was the old Mosaic conception according to
which it became the greatest disaster for a woman to die without
progeny, and dishonourable to remain unmarried and childless. "God
hath taken away my reproach," said Rachel, when she bore her son. This
is Hinduism, and there is a gulf between it and the later Christian
teaching.

* * *

THE mischief began with Paul. His doctrine was paraphrased by S.
Augustine--who, by the way, tolerated concubinage--in words which
afterwards became the canon of the church: to wit, that a fruitful
marriage is not to be compared in excellence to the purity of a
virgin; that perpetual continence is preferable to the married
condition, even if the begetting of children be its aim; that if one
had no children one should render thanks to God; and so forth. Even so
Chrysostom, who calls women "a foe to friendship, an unescapable
punishment, a necessary evil," etc., tells us that virginity is a
saintly state, and as superior to married life as Heaven is superior
to earth--a statement which would have scandalized Moses. Other
Fathers are no less explicit. S. Bernard says of women that their face
is a burning wind and their voice the hissing of serpents; S. Jerome
tells us that he who loves his wife to excess is an adulterer; he
calls women the "gate of Hell," and, writing to a widow about to
re-marry, quotes S. Peter's words in regard to the dog returning to
its vomit and the sow that was washed going back to wallow in the
mire.

Christianity of this--the official--type is incompatible with decent
sex-relations.

The movement towards the degradation of womanhood went on in a
delirious crescendo^ and soon we have our schoolmen asking whether
females be human beings at all, or not rather monsters in human shape,
and suchlike conundrums. Does the religious literature of India
contain researches of this sort? It is not likely, but I cannot tell
for certain. The casuists meanwhile were at work pursuing the enemy,
with unimpeachable logic, into labyrinthine byways of nastiness where
the most dirty-minded of modern laywriters would fear to read. Their
labours, directed to transforming woman into a guinea-pig, have been
conscientiously summed up in _Theologie Amoureuse des Peuples
d'Occident: Morale Matrimoniale: par un ancien Chanoine_. It is
written from a strictly Catholic point of view (published, I should
guess, in the 'nineties). And yet-how strangely anti-Catholic in
spirit! A sensible Pope like Pius the Second, one fancies, would
have had small use for this kind of "Theology." As to Alexander the
Sixth... The book is not suitable for a school-prize. Its effect
upon a newly married couple must be depressing in the extreme, and I
venture to recommend the Kama Sutra as a counter-irritant.

* * *

IN THE whole course of history, the most brutal enslaver of women has
been Christianity. We have been told much about the low position of
the female sex at Athens, but, as Mr. M'Cabe points out (_Sources of
the Morality of the Gospels_, p. 103), Plato vindicated the equality
of women two thousand years before any Christian Of rceived it.
Adultery was punished with death at Athens, not out of a
transcendental (Christian) regard for chastity, but because it broke
in upon the mutual attachment of married people. Even in the most
licentious periods of antiquity, and among the most licentious
authors, you will have difficulty in discovering anything which
justifies adultery. Where would our Christian literature be without
this peppery ingredient?

A propos of literature, there is nothing like the _Malleus
Maleficarum_ in that of any country on earth. It was written not by
some amateurish woman-hater in a fit of bad temper, but by two
recognized teachers of Christian dogma at the command of a Pope
(Apostolical Bull of Innocent VII. issued on 9th December 1484, and
addressed to the authors). A section of it, Part I, Question 6, might
be called the misogynist's handbook. No creed save ours has engendered
this pathological fear and loathing of the female sex.

One single Biblical phrase, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,"
has led to the death by agonizing torture of unnumbered innocent old
women; another one, "that I may present you as a chaste virgin to
Christ," has condemned many hundred thousand young ones to lifelong
imprisonment--to tears and misery in the cells of convents. And if
they slipped through that net, there were other cheerful texts, such
as "compel them to enter in," lying in wait for them. Whoever wishes
to refresh his memory in regard to these enormities need only glance
into the Memoirs of Princess Henrietta Caracciolo, which were written
as late as 1864.

So much for the enslaving of women by Hindus.

* * *

AS TO the enslaving of men, Plato, and after him the Stoic moralists
and lawyers, already censured slavery, which neither Christ nor any of
His followers discovered to be wrong till twelve centuries later. And
how about slavery among the Hindus? Megasthenes reports that no Indian
can, under any circumstances, be a slave; Arrian adds that they forbid
even the employment of aliens as slaves. In this, as in every other
department of social life, the ethics of the Hindus are as superior to
those of Semitic Christians as are their achievements in art and
philosophy, in literature and science.

One might do worse, in this connexion, than see what Ouida writes in
her _Failure of Christianity_ :

"... Even of death Christianity has made a terror which was unknown to
the gay calmness of the Pagan and the stoical repose of the Indian.
Never has death been the cause of such craven timidity as in the
Christian world....

"... Christianity has ever been the enemy of human love; it has
forever cursed and expelled and crucified the one passion which
sweetens and smiles on human life, which makes the desert blossom as
the rose, and which glorifies the common things and common ways of
earth. It made of this, the angel of life, a shape of sin and
darkness, and bade the woman whose lips were warm with the first
kisses of her lover believe herself accursed and ashamed. Even in the
unions which it reluctantly permitted, it degraded and dwarfed the
passion which it could not entirely exclude, and permitted it coarsely
to exist for the mere necessity of procreation. The words of the
Christian nuptial service expressly say so. Love, the winged god of
the immortals, became, in the Christian creed, a thrice-damned and
earth-bound devil, to be exorcised and loathed. This has been the
greatest injury that Christianity has ever done to the human race...."

If our attitude towards women has changed of late, the explanation is
this: we have abandoned the precepts of our inspired teachers, and cut
the cables that bound us to them.

* * *

LIKE the Hindus, we talk about our "superfluous" women. I dislike that
word. I question whether women can be proved to be superfluous until
you have abolished them, and in the present case the word is based on
the assumption that each man requires only one mate. Why not fifty? I
have watched in the old days the Turkish harem taking their pleasure
out of doors; they were as happy as children and, in point of law, as
free to leave their husbands as our wives are, if they have any cause
for complaint against him. This is an economic problem; it depends
upon how many women a man is able and willing to support, or, if you
like, how many women care to club together in order to support one
man. Seeing that a single male of our species is capable of
fecundating any number of females, one might more reasonably talk
about superfluous men.

Hindus deal with these economically over-numerous women by practising
female infanticide (among unlettered classes) and polygamy--two
straightforward attempts to tackle the problem.

We Europeans have improved on the Oriental system of infanticide. Save
for a little amateurish overlying and an occasional foetus down the
lavatory pipe, the custom has grown obsolete. We have birth control
and other tricks that get at the root of the matter. Their only
drawback--a serious one--is that they destroy males and females
indiscriminately.

And Oriental polygamy, carried on under Western conditions of life,
would be a terrible drain on a man's income, and a great
responsibility as well. Absurd, nevertheless, to suggest that our
adult males are living monogamous lives; if one or two are doing so,
it means that they lack either the moral grit or the physical outfit,
or both. They are polygamists; but their polygamy is practised on
inexpensive lines and with a minimum of personal responsibility. Our
European rule runs to the effect that a man's mistresses are to be
kept by their husbands.

This is an advance on Eastern methods.

* * *

ON THE other hand, our Divorce Courts, which make absolute about three
thousand cases a year, reveal European life at a low level; they lack
the frankness and consistency of the East. An unlovely, farcical
tangle, which involves elements of hypocrisy and dirty work on the
part of everybody concerned, not excluding the judge. The sanctity of
wedlock is prescribed both by our religion and by that of the Hindu,
but we have cut the cables, as usual, whereas the Hindu still regards
divorce as _at once monstrous and impossible_.

This public airing of soiled linen is vulgar, un-Asiatic.

Said Mr. Justice Hill: "The law which this Court has to administer is
full of inconsistencies, and is often very difficult to reconcile with
common sense."

So is the whole institution.

* * *

THERE seems to be some confusion between Indian child-betrothal and
Indian child-marriage, which are two different things. The former is a
measure to hinder incontinence before marriage, and might
advantageously be copied in Europe (as it used to be) if we attached
the same importance as do the Hindus to a virginal state of body on
the part of the bride; that is, if we insisted on such a state. We
dare not insist. We must buy the cat in the bag. The cat is not
always up to specified quality.

At Ahmedabad not long ago an injunction was applied for to prevent the
marriage of a widower of 53--some said 55, while he maintained that
his age was 49--with a girl of 15, on the ground of the disparity of
their ages. Incredible to relate, the injunction was granted by the
English district judge and, on appeal, upheld.

It may be that the girl did not want to marry; that would put another
complexion on the affair. If she was willing, then my sympathies
go out to the widower. He might have obtained his heart's desire,
had his legal adviser pointed out that in 1927, according to our
Registrar-General, seventeen old Englishmen of over seventy married
girls in their'teens. A wedding described in the press as "77 marries
15" took place in the South of England last month. It was the third
marriage of the bridegroom, who is said to have been for many years
"interested in child welfare." So it appears, and I can only
congratulate him on not living at Ahmedabad. Despite the precocious
physical development of Indians, the child-marriage business is
overdone out there. These poor fellows are petrified in
conservativeness; they wish to conform to the law which binds all
mammals and lays it down that menstruation is indicative of sexual
maturity. Girls therefore, like other mammals of their sex, can and
should be married at the earliest date after reaching puberty. Now
most mammals--take, for example, the domestic kitten--are mentally
mature before they are sexually so. Not the man of to-day. The
complex conditions which society has evolved demand so relatively high
a standard of mentality that mental maturity in his case actually lags
behind the attainment of the other. And mental maturity is now to be
the test of the marriageable age.

For the rest, our English rule which allows a boy of fourteen to marry
a girl of twelve compares unfavourably not only with other European
countries but with some Oriental ones: with Turkey, for instance,
where the marriageable age for both sexes is fixed at fifteen; or with
China, which insists upon sixteen as the lowest age. In 1927,
thirty-five of our English brides were only fifteen, and twelve
bridegrooms only sixteen; and 58,000 persons were married under
twenty-one.

Lord Buckmaster made some pertinent remarks the other day in the House
of Lords:

"I wonder if your Lordships realize that, although child-marriages are
permitted in non-Christian India, yet none the less, married or no, it
is a criminal offence for a man to have relations with a girl under
the age of thirteen years. In other words, all the time that we were
making this disturbance about the condition of affairs in India, we
had a condition of affairs here at home which in some respects was
identical, and in one marked instance was worse. Surely the first
thing we ought to do is to put our own house in order before we start
arranging other people's."

* * *

AS WE have a fit of age-raising just now we might consider, I think,
whether it would not be reasonable to raise the hanging age, which is
at present fixed at sixteen. It is difficult to conceive in what
circumstances a boy of sixteen can deserve death by hanging. Yet
during the twenty-five years ending 1926, fifty-seven persons under 21
were sentenced to death, and twenty of them actually executed.

And while we are about it, we might raise the age of criminality in
general. As matters stand, a child above seven who commits an offence
against the law is a criminal. I gather from Mr. Brockway's _New Way
with Crime_ that a departmental Commission which lately reported on
this imbecility has concluded that the age "could now be safely raised
to eight."

Perhaps seven and a-half would meet the case.

* * *

WHILE Hindus like their brides under-ripe, a certain proportion of us
prefer them in the dowager stage. How explain the fact that it is
sometimes the bride who leads the blushing bridegroom to the
altar--the bride well out of her'teens? This incongruity is a
ceaseless source of marvel to me, though I can appreciate the lady's
point of view. Have such men lost the wit to perceive the discrepancy
of marrying women who are almost old enough, and always shrewd enough,
to be their grandmothers? Or is it a sign of insufficient manliness
that, instead of capturing young girls, they are captured by old ones?

Not a single union of this kind ever takes place among Orientals, nor
could it take place among any men possessing a relic of the aesthetic
sense, for if there is one thing uglier than an unclothed old or even
middle-aged man, it is a woman at the same period of life.

Such dames are probably more experienced than younger ones and also
more grateful, as Benjamin Franklin observed long ago. Their husbands,
however, must find it difficult to instil any fresh notions into their
heads, and that is surely one of the joys in store for the bridegroom.
Uphill work, trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Uphill
work! Whence the hunted look peculiar to married men of this variety.

* * *

I HAVE also a prejudice, not shared by everybody, against golden and
silver weddings. If these observances are not Teutonic in their
origin, they ought to be; they bear the impress of vulgar
ostentatiousness. Such anniversaries should be celebrated in the
strictest intimacy. Conjugal fidelity recorded on a tomb will pass,
since nobody takes these inscriptions seriously; but it strikes me as
questionable taste when two people suggest in public that they have
slept together for fifty years, or whatever it is, like a brace of
Wandaroo monkeys. Besides, they haven't....

* * *

THERE is one feature peculiar to Indian married women which the author
of Mother India, observant--viciously observant--as she is of such
things, has overlooked. I refer to their singular custom of nursing
boy-children at the breast till they are almost old enough to play
polo. Whether the habit be good for the parent or not, it certainly
strikes me that mother's milk is incongruous nourishment for
youngsters who can digest mutton cutlets and jam tarts.

This little absurdity, if my American informant be correct, can be
matched in some wilder parts of the West. Overheard in Kentucky:

"Say, young man, what are you beating up your mother for? Put down
that stick!"

"The damned old bitch--she's trying to wean me."

* * *

INDIANS keep a good number of their "superfluous" women indoors. They
are sometimes let out for hire, the young ones, and are known among
Europeans as "private girls," earning a little money and giving
satisfaction to a class of white men who might dread contact with
professionals.

We do not put our superfluous women into the Zenana. We put them on
the streets. I am not going into prostitution-statistics. During the
War, and on good--rainless and windless--nights, I often counted over
thirty of them, freelances all, to a measured hundred paces of Paris
boulevard; forty-eight was my record (unbelievable crocks, many of
them). They have now a better breed, but fewer in numbers. The really
high-class prostitute--in England, at least--tends to disappear. Her
days are numbered. The lady is usurping her functions.

A certain class of Indian girls are put into temples for the use of
the priests, and the Buddhist monks of Ceylon are not content with
this system. These yellow-robed saints will have nothing to do with
the pretty Singhalese; they import their girl-friends direct from
Japan.

* * *

THERE has been some talk lately about the De-vadasis owing, I daresay,
to a chapter in another book by the author of _Mother India_. In every
case, there seem to be two sides to this question as to their
ill-treatment. A late Lieut.-Colonel in the R.A. Medical Corps
writes: "... During my six years in India I must have visited many
hundreds of temples. I spoke the language fairly fluently, and for a
short time I was acting Governor of the jail, and had opportunities of
seeing and hearing a good deal that tourists do not. Only on rare
occasions did I ever see any dancing-girls in the temples. These
Temple Maidens, or Devadasis, as they are called, appeared to be
extremely happy and well cared for...."

We do not put girls into temples for the use of the priests. We put
them into brothels for the use of anybody who cares to go there. It is
nothing unusual, in low-class European establishments, for a girl to
receive visits from twenty to thirty men a day; indeed, it is usual.

I think I should prefer the Indian temple engagement. It sounds more
restful.

* * *

"THE number of still-births," says the author of _Mother India_ (p.
106), "is heavy. Syphilis and gonorrhoea are among its main
causes...."

So they are everywhere.

The frequency of syphilis is a disgrace to Europe. I do not know
Indian statistics of mortality (they probably do not exist), but I
defy them to be more appalling than those of France, which are lying
before me in the shape of a bundle of recently printed reports. Here
are some French figures that provide matter for thought:

40,000 miscarriages a year are due to syphilis.

20,000 children die from it every year between the sixth month of
gestation and the third day after birth.

80,000 others die from it every year--including 36,000 child-victims
between the ages of four days and fifteen years.

Syphilis is therefore responsible for 140,000 yearly deaths in France.
If gonorrhoea be taken into account, "the ravages of venereal disease
are greater than those of tuberculosis," which is responsible for
150,000 deaths a year.

Four million Frenchmen are suffering from it.

These figures are considered to be "very certainly still below the
reality."

Is it to the credit of Europe that, in spite of all we knew about this
disease, we should have waited until the last few years before
discarding haphazard methods and grappling systematically with it?
During the war, in 1916, was noted an ominous rise which culminated in
1919, the worst year. This scared the medical profession and the
public.

Better late than never. The French have now started a scientific
crusade, attacking the enemy from every side--by the formation of
societies to this end, by propaganda of many kinds, posters, films,
theatrical representations, gratuitous dispensaries, ambulances,
lectures by radio and otherwise, a campaign against patent medicines
and quack doctors, revised regulations for prostitutes, distribution
of leaflets and brochures, money-prizes for the best popular essays on
the subject, newspaper publicity, sanitary control of immigrants,
special educational courses, and other measures.

The results are on the whole satisfactory--not so satisfactory,
however, as in Belgium, where syphilis has been reduced in only four
years to one-fifth of what it was before that time: a "diminution
foudroyante" which shows what can be done by concentrated effort, and
for which "propaganda" is said to be chiefly responsible.

There has been so serious an outbreak of venereal disease in Carnarvon
among children under sixteen years of age that the County Health
Committee are advocating the compulsory notification of such cases. I
question whether the Ministry of Public Health would ever take a step
of this kind. During the War, in a certain military hospital, the
parents of infected men were notified of their condition, with the
result that there were so many suicides among the patients that the
number of the ward had to be changed, on account of its ill-repute.
You may notify scarlet fever; who is going to notify venereal disease?
People would sooner take their chance of being fined for not doing so.
On the other hand, many of the methods of Franco-Belgian propaganda
are inconceivable in a Godfearing country like Wales. Whoever wishes
to abolish syphilis should begin by abolishing hypocrisy.

* * *

SO MUCH for the superfluous-are they superfluous?-women of the lower
classes. Their social superiors of the middle class can best be
studied in places like Kensington High Street or Oxford Circus, where
legions of marriageable but unmarried women block the pavements to
such an extent that future town-planning will have to take this factor
into account, and build special subways for those of us who have any
business on hand. Sad to think how few of them are professionals. They
would at least have a _raison d'etre_ in this world, and be earning
their own bread-and-margarine.

Or if they could be induced to emigrate! But that is not the ideal of
those whom we could spare most easily. They prefer Oxford Circus. And
yet a few shiploads would be a godsend in places like British East
Africa, where they would have a good time with the young planters and
Government clerks, who are nearly all unmarried and entitled by nature
to a little female society, whether as wives or otherwise--I mean as
honest housekeepers; especially in view of the twice-repeated
confidential circular recommending Government employes to avoid all
intercourse with native women.

Though something may be said for such instructions, they are a dead
letter, if they exist at all, among the French and Dutch and
Portuguese, who have not forgotten the organic needs of their colonial
officials, and do not condemn them to celibacy at a period of life
when they arc least fitted for it. Our youngsters out there arc losing
a disproportionate amount of health and happiness, considering the
little they gain in prestige. Once you are accustomed to the proximity
of these black fairies there is nothing to be said against them. They
are ready for as much fun as you please, and no trouble whatever to
keep. A liaison with such a one would be more amusing and
unquestionably more instructive than with the average white girl,
though I daresay we should tire of them sooner or later.

We tire of the white ones too.

And don't they tire of us....

* * *

NOT many years ago the German Reichstag by a great majority asked the
Government to bring in a Bill legalizing in their colonies marriages
between whites and blacks. There is something to be said for such
unions; they have a political significance which is emphasized in
Shiva by Mr. R. J. Minney. Speaking of the early days of the British
occupation in India when they were common, he says that they "resulted
in a far greater understanding of native mentality and conditions than
is possible from the detached viewpoint of the white home, where the
black is only a menial and even the educated Indian is admitted on
suffrance." An understanding of native mentality is of more value than
big battalions. They have, however, this drawback: the whites are
sometimes inoculated with the mentality of the blacks, as Lord
Dalhousie had occasion to discover.

The same state of affairs prevailed in the days of William Hickey,
whose memoirs contain an exhilarating account of Anglo-Indian life in
the eighteenth century. No opprobrium then attached to a man's having
a native concubine or wife, and Hickey himself, at first inconsolable
for the loss of his darling Charlotte, takes to his heart later on a
"lovely Hindostanee girl," who was "respected and admired" by all his
friends. These friends included the Governor-General, the Chief
Justice, the Commanding Military Officer, and all the _dessus du
panier_, male and female.

Let him try it on, nowadays....

* * *

I SHOULD be vastly pleased to see a complete and definitive edition of
these memoirs, which I have just been re-reading. So far they have
appeared in slightly abbreviated form, because some parts were
considered dull, and others, owing to freedom of language, unfit for
publication. This un-fitness, I fear, will prove a disappointment to
those who hope to find in the omitted portions what they find in the
unexpurgated Pepys. Hickey's was a franker variety of amorousness,
and his coarseness is simply that of Smollett. "I vomited out of the
coach window the whole way to the great entertainment of the
foot-passengers." Whoever still believes in the immutability of racial
characters, a theory that has some bearing on the problem of East and
West, should read these memoirs in order to see how differently an
Englishman near to us in point of time could think and behave. Were
memoirs of this kind written to-day, they would doubtless
contain--incidentally, at least--some description of the country or
reflection on its inhabitants; we might also expect to find literary
or political allusions. There is little of the kind here. The book
deals with social events happening to Hickey and his group, and with
nothing else; it glides smoothly along--no haste, no fretfulness, no
snobbery, no erudition; a convivial document full of zest and yet
quite leisurely. It reeks of wine and good cheer. Hickey relished life
and, unlike the present generation, was not afraid of human nature.

He began boozing early. At the ripe age of seven, sitting on
somebody's knee, he swallows his bumper of claret, declaring that he
looks forward to the day when he may be able to drink two bottles. And
Willie was not the "pickle" of the family; his brother was worse.
They were fond of each other, and their fraternal orgies grew to be so
terrible that "I came to the determination never again to join my
brother in those tete-a-tetes."

I suppose we should call him precocious nowadays. "Many a bumper of
champagne and claret have I drunk in the society of this set, at
taverns and brothels, accompanied by the most lovely women of the
Metropolis, and this before I had completed my fourteenth year"-and
again: "I told her the strength of my purse, and proposed going to the
play, which she consenting to, there was I a hopeful sprig of 13,
stuck up in a green box, with a disreputable woman. From the theatre
she took me home to supper, giving me lobsters and oysters, both of
which she knew I was very fond of, and plenty of rum punch...."

Hindu boys must look to their laurels.

Was he any the worse for these and other "excesses"? On the contrary.
After spending half his life under the then pestilential conditions of
India, he died in England over eighty years of age.

* * *

NUMBERS of them perished out there from fever, because they had no
quinine, and bark was taken only empirically. They must have been a
tough lot on the whole. Hickey gives us more than one glimpse of Lord
Lake and his almost unbelievable achievements at the age of
sixty-five; there were others of his genus, and one marvels how they
got through their tasks in the India of those days with no tinned
provisions or condensed milk, no ice--they "cooled" their claret, I
imagine, by evaporation: the first ice was brought to Calcutta from
America--no electric fans, no whisky-and-soda or light beer, no escape
to the hills from the burning heats of summer when, to refresh
themselves, they swilled quarts of madeira (port is never named). Now
here is a little point. Hickey prided himself upon a connoisseurship
of wine, and yet, whatever he drank, be it claret or burgundy or
champagne or madeira, he describes as either good or bad, and there's
an end of it. I can discover no mention of any particular brands. When
did our interest in such things begin?

Another little point. I observe no disparagement of native life or
customs--indeed, older travellers to the East and older residents
there are altogether lacking in our tone of arrogance towards
Orientals. When did our racial superiority over them begin to dawn on
us? When our racial intelligence began to decline. The theatre is as
good a test of general intelligence as any, and nobody, I think, will
dare to assert that the mind of our present theatre-going public is as
nimble and critical as it was in Hickey's day, or even much later.

And what I said on p. 23 about our doing sums in school when we might
be getting married finds a commentary here. Hickey himself was
appointed a midshipman before he could read or write; another boy of
14 is mate of a ship; another of 21 in command of one of the company's
vessels; another of 18 commands a troop of Dragoons; another of 22 is
senior officer of his regiment; another of the same age commands a
frigate.

Were these lads incompetent? Far from it, though their equipment might
not always be adequate for modern needs.

* * *

SPEAKING of education, certain of the letters sprinkled about these
pages deserve a close study by reason both of their well-expressed
language and of the fine feeling which underlies that language.
Analogous letters written nowadays would not betray this genuine
sympathy, this delicacy of touch. What is the use of education if,
instead of producing a sensitive and cultured mind, it frets away--as
I said before--our finer edges?

With all this gentlemanliness, the memoirs are pervaded by a
refreshing air of corruptibility--a breath of earlier days, when
Englishmen were still made of flesh and blood, and a few sparks of
spontaneity glimmered under our puritan ashes. We encounter various
delightfully accommodating Customs Officers: one would like to shake
hands with them. How smoothly the wheels went round! I confess that,
with increasing experience, I have reached the conclusion that honesty
is a matter of time and place. I am not pleading for dishonesty; as
with illiteracy, not every one possesses the required qualifications.
But I should say that an imaginative man can never be constitutionally
honest, as some of us may rightly claim to be. The eighteenth century
was more imaginative than ours. What is honesty? A time-saving
contrivance. The eighteenth century was not pressed for time. The
majority of modern people being dullards pressed for time, honesty is
not only their best policy, but their only possible one.

Hickey, for the rest, seems to have been a man of singular rectitude.
What he earned was devoted to social pleasures, with the result that
while many of his friends grew rich out there--one of them, not a
merchant but a barrister, made 80,000 pounds in a little over three
years--he returned home relatively poor. There he died at a
patriarchal age, after writing memoirs which are a veritable godsend.
There are four volumes of them; forty would not be too much.

Memoirs are being printed furiously just now--cheery accounts of
globe-trottings and sports, with political gossip, an occasional
glimpse of royalty, a little scandal, and a good story here and there.
These things are records, not revelations of a personality. You cannot
offer to others what you lack yourself, and their authors have no
personality to reveal. There is also not much sense of spaciousness;
the present age, for all its cosmopolitan hustle, is curiously
suburban in spirit. In short, nobody can give us a document on
Hickey's lines; we possess neither his outlook nor his material.

* * *

WHAT are they doing meanwhile in Oxford Circus, these thousands of
potential mothers doomed to sterility? Flattening their noses against
the windows of drapers' shops. What have they ever done? They have
flattened their noses.

I should not be surprised to learn that some of them can cook a
passable dinner, and that a good many have outgrown the chastity ideal
of their grandmothers. Even if not, they can now do something still
better than that. They can serve on juries; they can vote: over five
million have been added to the register by the recent Act. It
promises well. Somebody has said that the spirit of revolution broods
over the female sex. Let us hope that he, or she, was right; for in
that case women will at last be in a position to counteract that
fuddle-headed romancer, the male, whose veneration for cast-iron
principles, however obsolete and perverse, is ripe for a formidable
shattering. Under these new conditions we shall, I trust, have more
imagination in public affairs--call it flexibility or laxity if you
like: no need to haggle about a word, so long as the thing itself
comes about. That will mean more sympathy. Love of principles and
lack of sympathy are not to be distinguished in their results. And
lack of sympathy means lack of charity.

Some more charity would not be amiss. About fifteen thousand
non-criminal debtors are locked up in England at this moment (this is
an English specialty--almost). In 1926 the Courts of summary
jurisdiction convicted 525,543 persons; 25,564 receiving terms of
imprisonment without the option of a fine. And although everybody is
agreed that prison life is harmful to persons under 21, yet the
average sent there is 3000 a year; in 1925-1926 twenty-one were
sentenced to penal servitude, the minimum term being three years. The
other day a boy of 17 was sentenced to six months' hard labour;
another of 15 sent to prison for a month for stealing four-pence. How
about the Probation Act? And what is Jesus saying to all this?

Something, maybe, about the deplorable consequences of a reverence for
out-of-date principles. ...

* * *

THE idealistic male with his cult of principles is the curse of
Europe. He will die for his principles; no harm in that. He will
persecute others for his principles, and this is what makes him such a
nuisance. Let us thank our stars that women are congenitally
unprincipled. Up to the present they have not had much chance of
displaying this quality as public functionaries. Now they have, and
herein lies our hope. But for this fact, society might well go to
pieces from sheer ossification and priggishness.

For your prig is a person with fixed principles, who can therefore see
only one side of a question. He is no modern product; Roman history is
full of such people--the Romans may be called a nation of prigs, and
England is infested with them to such an extent that they poison the
very air we breathe. Now there are more women in England than men.
Nevertheless, there are fewer woman-prigs than man-prigs. How does
this come about? Because preconceived theories lie less heavily on
women; they find no difficulty in seeing two sides of a question. And
if they sometimes see more sides than there actually are, as they are
supposed to do--why, it is a fault in the right direction.

P.S. A man who calls women congenitally unprincipled may look out for
squalls. Let me shelter in good time behind the skirts of Mrs. Walter
M. Gallichan, who calls women "instinctive moral anarchists," and of
Madame Andreas-Salomi, who says that they are "swayed, far more deeply
than men, by a hidden contempt for what is traditionally accepted."

One of these days it may be an outspoken contempt.

* * *

IF ASKED to say what principles are, I should reply that they are
adaptations; guiding rules of conduct derived from our experience of
ourselves and of our surroundings. This experience, as every one
knows, is shifting all the time. A good deal has had the bottom
knocked out of it during the last century. Many principles therefore
have ceased to be adaptations, unless modified. They are survivals,
anomalies. Our social machinery is clogged by what were once
adaptations and are now anachronisms as useless and menacing as the
vermiform appendix. They ought to be scrapped. They would be scrapped,
but for the idealistic man-fool who is too lazy to take the trouble.
Laziness is the hall-mark of idealism.

The French Revolution and Bonaparte gave us English such a scare as to
the dangers of individualism that there followed a general
tightening-up of principles; the late War has had a similar effect. We
are living in an era of constriction. The mischief, however, is older
than that. It is rooted in the codification-mania of the old Romans,
and in their _pietas_ (leave things as you find them) which suits our
lymphatic temperament down to the ground.

Orientals are more fluid and more pliant. A "precedent"--the
Englishman's delight, because it saves him the trouble of confronting
an emergency--is of no great account with themj they hold that "no law
can meet individual cases, and that a regime of law is a regime of
injustice." I wonder, indeed, whether an authentic precedent has
ever existed on earth, unless one disregards contributory elements of
greater or less moment. Be that as it may, a precedent is a
rule-of-thumb measure, and Orientals distrust such measures. As Mr.
Townsend points out, they prefer to the inexorableness of our system,
to our leaden order, a flexible and human will. They realize that
every act of man is unique of its kind. They believe in expediency as
opposed to abstract principles.

It is to be hoped that woman-voters will justify their existence by
battering down a few obstructive principles which are responsible for
an infinity of harm, and which the man-dreamer would not touch to save
his life, unless they kick him into doing it. What trouble it has
cost, hitherto, to obtain the repeal of some hopelessly senile
exactment! These women should expedite matters and make the country
more inhabitable.

As for the others, the non-voters--a Zenana-life might have
attractions for some of them. There they could talk _chiffons_ day
and night, and play with embroideries and jewelry, and eat as much
fancy pastry as they like. There, too, they would find what not all of
them can find in Oxford Circus.

* * *

THE social superiors of this class of woman can be studied to
advantage during the winter months on the French Riviera, where they
abound--all of them rich, and most of them past middle age. A resident
tells me that seven out of ten English visitors at this season are
women. Certainly one of the features of the landscape down there is
that horde of painted old dames, double-chinned and encrusted with
pearls, tearing up and down the country in high-priced cars. What are
they doing? Driving about. What have they ever done? They have driven
about. One wonders what the upkeep of these rest-(84) lessly-gadding
parasites costs their respective males. And if they have money of
their own, one wonders who was fool enough to give it them. One hopes,
in every case, that they are being well trimmed by some friend or by
their servants.

Into purdah? No. The old dears are having a lovely time of it.
Besides, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that purdah-life could
teach them.

* * *

WHEN all is said and done, an intelligent interest in food--how to
prepare it and how to enjoy it--is no illusory sign of civilization.
Judged by this test, the French stand in the front rank of civilized
people.

Another test. There appeared in Paris not long ago a collection of
appreciative sketches by prominent writers which had for subject a
colleague of theirs; the volume was dedicated to him; it was their
publicly expressed "Homage" to his merits. Homage books are known in
England also, but I have no hesitation in saying that what is implied
in the publication of this particular one demonstrates that France has
reached a point of liberal culture to which England has not yet begun
to aspire. Here, then, is a second and different touchstone of
civilization.

This by way of preamble.

M. Louis Roubaud, in the interests of the _Quotidien_, wrote a series
of articles about French reformatories for boys and girls; they came
out afterwards in book form under the title _Enfants de Cain_. If the
material was printed in the _Quo-tidien_ as it stands in the book,
that paper is to be congratulated on its courage. No English editor
would have accepted it. As to the book itself--not one of our
publishers would touch it unless a considerable number of entire pages
were cut out. Not that there is anything revolting in what the author
has to tell us. He merely adverts, with data, to certain features in
the social life of these institutions, features to which an English
writer would not dare to advert because he knows, firstly, that his
readers cannot bear to look truth in the face, and, secondly, that if
they could, his publisher would still refuse to print. I think it was
Mr. Lowes Dickinson who said that "an obstinate and familiar habit of
the English is to get rid of facts they don't like by pretending that
they don't exist."

They tell me that Jacques Dhur's (or is it Andre de Lorde's) _Bagne
d'Enfants_ contains more vivid accounts of the sufferings of these
children; I have not seen it. _Enfants de Cain_ is quite
disheartening enough, though not sensational on the lines of _Mother
India_. Two things strike me as peculiarly lamentable: the large
percentage of young inmates of these places who have not been
convicted of any offence whatever and are none the less rotting there,
and the incapacity of the "unlettered" persons in charge of them. And
the injustices... a boy of 14 was instigated by one of 25 to help in
the theft of a bicycle; the instigator received fifteen days'
imprisonment, and the other was landed for seven years in one of these
Hells. The official callousness... the directress had applied for
"provisional liberty" for the best-behaved girl in the establishment
who had been there three years without incurring any blame; the
Ministry refused it. The cruelties... they have a strait-waistcoat
punishment for girls; your hands are strapped from behind over your
shoulders, you are thus bent double, and, in order to eat--there being
neither table nor chair--you must lie on your stomach on the floor and
lap up your food like a dog. One girl died of suffocation under this
torture; according to the inquest it was a case of ordinary
congestion, "mais elle est bien morte camisolee."

Accidents will happen....

* * *

SPEAKING of these children, M. Roubaud says:

"Ils sont nes: c'est leur crime.... Eysses et Clermont sont des
paradoxales prisons ou l'on enferme indifferemment les innocents et
les coupables, et d'ou sortent des apaches et des filles publiques....
Il est intolerable que des enfants soient durement punis sans avoir
rien fait; il est plus odieux encore que sous pretexte de les
reeduquer on les pervertisse.... Je sais bien que les mots 'maisons
correctionelles' ont ete effaces sur les portes. Il faut maintenant
raser les murs."

And an enlightened Director of such an establishment told him:

"What our children suffer would be nothing if one saved them. But I
can affirm, and have the proof of it, that all or nearly all finish
their existence in Guyana [as convicts].... What I have been able to
see in this reformatory is unimaginable, and I should have been
ashamed to stay so long in such a cloaca, had I not done my best to
clean it up."

These are abuses, but the French have at least the courage to expose
them in a public newspaper.

It would be useless attempting to obtain analogous information
concerning our English reformatories. You would no more hear the
truth than you can hear the truth about our penitentiaries. You would
be up against the usual brick wall. Yet a little leaks out now and
then, and that little is not to our credit. A defect of the English
system is that such places are mostly under private management, with
the result that "there is a danger that children may be retained
longer than is necessary, in order to retain the grant" (A. F.
Brockway, _A New Way with Crime_, p. 73). A painful instance of this
was recently exposed in _John Bull_ in an article beginning "If the
Board of Control cannot be bent, it must be broken" (8th Dec. 1928).
Indeed, that paper has done a public service in drawing attention to a
variety of things that call for betterment in our English
"Homes"--_see_, for example, 3rd Nov. 1928; 24th Nov. 1928; 29th Dec.
1928; 9th March 1929. It was with a certain purpose that I claimed
for France just now the first place among civilized people. M.
Roubaud's book is dated 1925. Exactly one hundred years earlier the
New York "House of Refuge" was founded by the local Society for the
reformation of Juvenile Delinquents. Seven years after the date were
issued the seven annual reports of the Society with a variety of
supplementary documents (_Documents of the New York House of Refuge_.
New York, printed by Mahlon Day, 376 Pearl Street, 1832). Whoever
reads this book will be convinced beyond all doubt that, as an
experiment in humanitarian reform, the American system of a hundred
years ago was superior, both in methods and results, to that of the
most civilized European nation of to-day.

It is not a consoling reflection.

One-third of the marriages contracted in France are sterile. No wonder
the French are crying about the depopulation of their country; they
want more citizens. Why do they condemn to a life of misery and
criminality so many of their children?

* * *

Two features of French life contribute to fill these reformatories
with undesirable--should I say undesired?--children. M. Roubaud
probably knows all about it, but refers to the matter only once (p.
207) when he tells of a boy of I 3 who was placed in such an
institution by his mother in order that she might pass the holidays at
a watering-place with her lover, undisturbed. My knowledge of such
things may be slight, but it is first-hand; it was acquired in Paris
during the War, when, circumstances compelling me to frequent a
particular "set," I opened my eyes, and saw.

Firstly, stepmothers. Your Frenchman, like many brave people, has
a pronounced streak of masochism in his nature. He relishes being
ordered about by wife or mistress; you can hear him boasting of his
obedience. Supposing such a man loses his wife and has her children on
his hands. Well, he mopes; he might pine away altogether if not
consoled with wife No. 2. This is the stepmother; and whoever knows
France will agree with me in saying that the French stepmother is
unlike anything else on earth. The children of the first marriage are
in her way; she is tigerishly concentrated on her own offspring--more
so than any English mother; they take up a certain amount of her
husband's time and affection, which annoys her; lastly, she controls
the family finances, and the idea of disbursing money on creatures not
her own is more odious to a close-fisted Frenchwoman than to any
other. She sets about discovering faults in them; the man dare not
disagree; he discovers them too. Anything for peace; the poor devil
has never had a will of his own, where domestic affairs are concerned.
He begins to neglect them; she nags them into resistance. At last,
convinced of the growing coldness of their father who once behaved so
differently, and driven to despair by their stepmother's systematic
persecution, they escape from home into the streets-even those of
decent families-where they are _ramasse_'d. in due course by the
police and sent, on the charge of undisciplined conduct, to some
reformatory. This is what the stepmother had in mind from the
beginning.

Secondly, the usual triangle; that is to say, where the mother of a
child has not only a husband but a lover as well. One such woman had a
son of about 14 who began to take notice of her liaison with this man
not his father and perhaps made some inconvenient remarks about him,
as a boy naturally would do. She saw her love-affair imperilled, and
it was not long before she had persuaded the boy's father to send him
to one of these unspeakable institutions on the usual pretext. There
he remained. A flabby father, you will say. So he was; and a cocu into
the bargain, like many of them. I could tell several such stories.

* * *

WHEREVER there are enclosing walls, there are abuses behind them; and
all that goes on behind those particular walls is misery. A case of
suicide, a most determined case, managed to leak out some time ago
owing to an indiscretion; otherwise it would have been hushed up. I
should like to know (1) what percentage of children confined in these
establishments has been landed there through the agency of stepmothers
or of married women with lovers on their hands; (2) what percentage,
if any, comes out "reformed" in any sense of that word; and (3) what
percentage of those in charge of them are retired prison warders, the
most brutal class of humanity.

Such children, whether boys or girls, would be happier and better
cared for in Indian brothels. They would also not end their lives as
convicts.

Needless to add that these _maisons de correction_, which are found
throughout Europe and which ought to be wiped off the face of the
earth, have not existed among Hindus in all the course of their long
history.

Mohammedans, who consider that children, however obstreperous or
perverse, are their parents' flesh and blood, would be horrified at
such methods. (It is the same with Foundling Hospitals. Followers of
Islam cannot understand our need of similar places.)

Orientals are able to control their offspring.

Why cannot Europeans?

* * *

THE appearance of books like M. Roubaud's and a more conscientious
application of the law seems to have led to some improvement in these
_maisons de correction_. This is reflected in a series of nineteen
articles by M. Raymond de Nys entitled "L'Enfance Maudite" and
published in the _Petit Parisien_ between the 22nd December 1927 and
23rd January 1928.

Much remains to be done before the system, if it is to be kept up at
all, can be called satisfactory. There is, for example, the Petite
Roquette establishment (soon, it appears, to be closed) full of
unhappy children, but possessing neither water, nor electricity, nor
heating, and whose "filthy and damp walls exude misery and vice." The
concluding article summarizes the chief defects still existing, one of
them being the inefficiency of those in charge. The old complaint!

"Il faudrait eduquer le personel de surveillance. ..."

I have just spoken of the Director of one reformatory who told M.
Roubaud that all or nearly all of the child-inmates ended their
existence as convicts in Guyana. Well, whoever can digest strong fare
might read the admirable description of Guyana convicts by M. Georges
le Fevre, which was written in the form of 26 articles for the Paris
_Journal_ (aoth Dec. 1925-4th Feb. 1926). It is to be hoped that these
articles will appear in book form like those of M. Rou-baud: they are
worth it. We learn that there are six thousand of these convicts
(one-quarter of the whole population) rotting out there, and the whole
system is riddled with cruelties and abuses and absurdities--a
disgrace to Europe which calls for instant and wholesale revision.

If they do not manage these things better out East, they could
certainly not manage them much worse.

* * *

A PROPOS of France, what of the concierge system?

A pest.

I have no objection, in Paris cafes and so forth, to being supervised
by the stony, argus-eyed female who sits enthroned night and day in
some strategic position of control (does she ever eat or sleep?); no
great objection, in a public convenience, to being escorted to my
particular destination by some sinister-looking person of the other
sex. _On s'y fait_.

Nothing will accustom me to that compound of slimy servility, police
espionage, and blackmail, who withholds your letters, forgets messages
entrusted to her, tells your friends you are out when you are in, and
invents other exquisite methods of annoyance, unless her paw be
periodically greased. Has any one ever written the life of the average
concierge and related the steps by which she has raised herself, often
from the dregs, to a position where she can control the happiness of
several households? The _Roman chez la Portiere_ is not to the point;
but I think one or two of my French friends are in a position to write
a little sketch entitled "How my Concierge got her Job"--instructive,
but hardly publishable (to which she, well informed as she is
regarding their habits, could reply with a "What his Concierge found
out"--equally instructive and, I fear, equally unpublishable).

You will not encounter the concierge East of Suez.

No wonder Orientals, observing how twenty decent families are
dominated and terrorized by a single disreputable female, come to the
conclusion that Europe is growing, or has grown, into a lunatic
asylum.

* * *

IT is difficult to put one's finger on a single spot and say: Here is
the difference between East and West. David Urquhart, whose books are
full of shrewd reflections, observes of the Turkish villagers: "though
they might suffer from the irregular excesses of ephemeral governors,
they ( loo) had not to wither under the undying errors of
legislators." Elsewhere he elaborates this argument about the
_intrusion of law_.

"... The difference between the tyranny of man and the tyranny of law
is one of the most instructive lessons the East has to teach. The one
is uncertain, and leaves to the oppressed chances and hopes of
escaping it; it varies with the individual; and those who suffer, if
not benefited, are, at least, consoled by the vengeance that, sooner
or later, overtakes the guilty. The tyranny of law is a dead and
immovable weight, that compresses at once the activity of the limb and
the energy of the mind; leaves no hope of redress, no chance of
escape; is liable to no responsibility for its acts, or vengeance for
its crimes."

Tyrannies so different in their nature cannot but differ as to their
results; persistently applied, they mould the minds of men into
dissimilar patterns. The inconstant pressure of a human will
induces shiftiness, mobility, and an uncomplaining readiness to take
the bad with the good; the constant pressure of an inhuman machine is
not favourable to the development of personality. We have seen the
process at work in England. The Anglo-Saxon, before he became a slave
to law, was more of an Oriental than he is to-day; more mercurial in
temperament, more flighty and tricky, but also more of an individual.
Our sense of private dignity can survive the most oppressive
man-despot; the despotism of law corrodes it.

* * *

THE opening pages of _Mother India_ are dedicated to a picturesque
account of a visit to a temple of Kali. This goddess is worshipped
chiefly by the lower classes, and in the temple a continuous slaughter
of kids and other revolting ceremonials are proceeding in her
honour--a gruesome spectacle calling for some pungent language, whose
veracity has not been left unchallenged (_Father India_, p. 69). It
was good journalism to start the book with this sanguinary
description, this epitome of the baser aspects of Hinduism; it arouses
the reader's interest and makes him hope for similar horrors later on.
He will not be disappointed.

Against these pages I had scrawled the enigmatical syllables Ath:
East: Can any one guess what they stand for? I abandoned all hope of
remembering, and only just now has it occurred to me that they signify
Athens: Easter. At that season, namely, there is a great slaughter of
lambs and kids in the streets of Athens, and the worshippers are not
confined to the lower classes. The beasts, as at Calcutta, are
sacrificed in honour of a deity; the only difference is that in India
their bodies are consumed by the priests and not by the populace, and
that the bloodshed takes place within the precincts of a temple and
not on the public roadways.

Squeamish persons are therefore not obliged, as at Athens, to witness
the rite. Squeamish tourists in Greece will do well to avoid the
steamers plying between the Aegean islands and the capital just before
Easter. These boats are loud with the bleating of lambs and kids torn
from their mothers and bound for the slaughter in Athens. They are
penned as closely as sardines, but in less regular order. So they roll
and pitch about, often on the top of each other, and sometimes for two
days. A sailor comes round now and then to throw overboard those which
have been trampled or suffocated to death.

Here is a job for the newly-founded Greek Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals.


* * *

INDIAN gods are apt to be grotesque, and Kali is no exception to that
rule. She is, on the other hand, too unnatural to inspire either
reverence or fear or loathing. A goddess with four hands is no longer
redoubtable, having overshot the mark and become a mere curiosity.

A little more tolerance on the subject of Eastern idols would do no
harm. All religious symbols are absurd, but some are more pleasant to
behold than others. I should like to ask any man who is neither Hindu
nor Christian whether a well-smeared lingam be not a less repulsive
object than a crucified God or Man.

* * *

INDIAN superstitions--we have heard enough about them.

How about European superstitions? I cull the following from the
press: "The persistent use by the populace of pagan specifics against
the Evil Eye is causing concern to certain leaders of the Church, who
complain that 'even among faithful observers of Christian practices
this superstitious idea has not fully died out.' Particular objection
is raised to objects such as horse-shoes, horns, and sheaves of corn
placed upon doorways, which contradict the Christian belief that 'all
goodness comes from God.' Cardinal ----- has approved a scheme
whereby these will be replaced by 'oriflammes bearing the name of the
Saviour.'"

The Cardinal in question must be at a loose end for something to do,
and a thin-skinned old gentleman into the bargain, if he objects to
the familiar horse-shoe. He will also find it a tough job, trying to
abolish the venerable horn-symbol which is older than history,
animistic and ubiquitous, and, in the Cardinal's country, not only
"placed on doorways" but sold in thousands by coral, mother-of-pearl,
silver (and other metal) merchants, and attached to man and beast, and
to vehicles as well. Macrobius, a sensible person, tells us that there
is nothing so powerful as a horn to avert evil. He was a pagan, but
the Cardinal can also find Scriptural authority for the use of this
emblem. Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron, and
presented them to the King of Israel as a charm to ensure his success
if he went up to Ramoth-Gilead to battle.

I think the old gentleman has started at the wrong end, if he wishes
to root superstitions out of his Church. Why not begin a little higher
up in the establishment?

* * *

HINDU bigotry, derided by many European travellers, can be matched in
our continent; matched and beaten. It is less acrimonious than that,
for example, of the Welsh. It does not break up family life. Savages
like those depicted in Caradoc Evans' _My People_, savages living
within a few hours of Charing Cross, cannot be found in the length and
breadth of India.

Hindu polytheism fares no better. And yet, if one must have a creed,
it is more logical than ours. A Great Being who sets the Cosmos in
motion and then goes to sleep: that will pass. One who remains awake
and responsible for all that happens on earth is a monster. Even with
the help of the Devil to explain away the worst of his tricks, he cuts
an indifferent figure. Monotheism, a graceless and unreasonable
belief, has its origin in laziness. A single God is an absurdity and a
bore.

It would be an infringement of copyright if I printed here, as I
should like to do, what I have elsewhere said on this subject (E.
Hutton, _A Glimpse of Greece_, p. 147).

A system of polytheism such as we find in Homer can be evolved only
among men who are really free, men of good health, of sensitive and
alert minds; men who possess constructive imagination and a deep
sympathy--a kind of masonic feeling--for the processes of nature.
These are the qualifications; and we no longer have them. The
Christian theory that polytheism points to a low state of culture is
refuted by the life described in these poems, which reveal an ethical
outlook cleaner than our own; the morality, private and public, of
these polythsists has extorted praise from all scholars, including the
sanctimonious Mr. Gladstone. Their standard of female virtue, for
example, contrasts favourably with what our monotheistic teachers have
told us about women. And that is a crucial test. Gladstone cannot
avoid making his usual reservation in favour of Christianity; he says,
nevertheless, that "it would be hard to discover any period of
history, or country of the world, not being Christian, in which women
stood so high as with the Greeks of the heroic age."

* * *

ROMAN CATHOLICS have shaken off the nightmare of monotheism. Their
Trinity is broken up, the Holy Ghost having evaporated in the course
of years, as spirits often do. Catholics have manufactured a Pantheon
of their own where pagan deities are well represented; rather a
sunless Council-chamber, but better than a single tyrant-god. They
realize that one deity cannot decently be entrusted with all the dirty
work he has to do. Like Jupiter, he requires lieutenants,
demi-gods--saints and angels. To take only the Madonna: there are
about one hundred varieties of this Magna Mater, local
demi-god-desses, each with separate attributes according to her
functions. Polytheism....

It was the same in old India, which claims to have possessed only one
Veda, one God to whom worship was addressed. Paramesvara or Brahma or
Ishwara was the true and omnipotent One. This system having the
inevitable drawbacks, he began to subdivide after the manner of other
Supreme Beings. The Rig-Veda helped in the work of laying down the
attributes of the nature-gods, of classifying and standardizing them.
Even so Homer "arranged the generations of the gods."

Poets are hostile to monotheism.

If we must have gods, let us have them by the score--it is the only
way out of the difficulty. Let us have them numerous as in the
streets of old Naples, where, according to Symmachus, it was easier to
encounter a god than a man. The more the merrier. Then we shall know
on whom to fix--the blame, when anything disagreeable happens to us.
At present, God being good, we are up a tree. The Southern peasant
knows which saint is responsible, if his cow breaks her leg or
swallows a billiard ball. How convenient, how reasonable!

Hanuman, the Divine Monkey, jumped from India to Ceylon.

Balaam's ass could talk Hebrew.

English people poke fun at Hanuman's exploit.

These are the same who haggle in Parliament as to transubstantiation.

Grown-up men, too....

* * *

How good it is, in the middle of such buffoonery, to throw your
Parliamentary Debates or Cruden's Concordance into the waste-paper
basket, and open a tale of the Arabian Nights, no matter where!
Instantly your humour mellows; you are transported into conditions
where life was pleasanter for both rich and poor. The compilation has
been deliberately devised for entertainment, but behind this
artificial screen one divines a society which was compact, harmonious,
and substantial. There are no false notes in Mohammedanism, no
patches. It simplifies our existence, and scorns its calamities. Above
all, you have the joy of finding yourself among real men. This
religion has not sapped our _amour-propre_. .,.

Or try Athenasus, for a change. Another compilation! Open him where
you please--------

The Sybarites were not only luxurious; they were absurdly sensitive,
and had such a dislike to work that the mere sight of manual labour,
and even the mere thought of it, made them feel unwell. One day a
citizen imprudently ventured outside the town walls, and there, to his
horror, he saw a man ploughing a field. He felt as if "all the bones
in his body were broken," but managed, nevertheless, to crawl back and
consult a medical friend of his.

"Good God," said the doctor, "you--you saw a man working..."

The doctor had fainted away.

* * *

ATHENAEUS has many such tales and is always diverting, whether he
discourses of eels or harlots or pigs' trotters or towels or turnips
or grammar or perfumery or fishmongers or cheesecakes or flutes. I
daresay he was personally a dull dog, a bookworm, a collector of
scraps. It is fortunate that these scraps have survived. They give us
glimpses into a state of refinement such as no longer exists. In that
Alexandrian conglomerate is embedded the residue of civilization.

Maybe the nearest approach to such a state of affairs could have been
found in China up to a few years ago. And it strikes me as significant
that men who speak most highly of Chinese life are precisely those
whom one would expect to be most deeply convinced, by reason of their
studies, of the superiority of Western tradition.

Mr. Lowes Dickinson has told us pretty clearly what he thinks in
_Letters from John Chinaman_. In another book he says: "The West
talks of civilizing China. Would that China could civilize the West!"

Mr. Bertrand Russell observes that "when I went to China I went to
teach; but every day that I stayed I thought less of what I had to
teach them and more of what I had to learn from them." And elsewhere:
"The Chinese are gentle, urbane, seeking only justice and freedom.
They have a civilization superior to ours in all that makes for human
happiness....I think they are the only people in the world who quite
genuinely believe that wisdom is more precious than rubies."

* * *

A FRIEND, British householder, sends me the following:

"This may interest you. The Travel Association of Great Britain and
Ireland, represented by English traders, tourist agencies, railway and
steamship companies, hotel and theatre proprietors, and others, is
anxious to increase the number of visitors, chiefly American, who come
to England; it wants to keep them here instead of letting them roam
about the continent of Europe or further afield. The Government has
lent its support to the movement (guaranteeing 5000 pounds towards the
funds next year) with Committees and suchlike, which has for its
watchword COME TO BRITAIN.

"Dear me!

"The preliminary puff should be drawn up on these lines:

"COME TO BRITAIN, where you will find:

"1. The worst climate in Europe.

"2. The most brutal and ferocious Customs-examination (the fingering
of rich women's _lingerie_ by the British working-class inspector is
offensive to the last degree. I have seen nothing like it elsewhere.
Is there not a tax on silk in other countries? Of course there is, but
these apply their law in a gentlemanly manner).

"3. The most comfortless and expensive hotels.

"4. The worst cooking.

"5. The worst wagon-restaurants (Menu: a bowl of soup, half cold; a
clammy slice of cod, half cold; a slice of foreign beef, half cold;
dried apple-tart and custard, warm; Canadian cheddar; chicory and
acorns for coffee, warm).

"6. That you cannot get a drink when you want one, in part of the
morning and the whole afternoon (a cheery place for Americans, who
want a drink all the time, and deserve it).

"7. That you are not allowed to buy a cigar after 8 P.M.

"8. Or to drink at all after 11 P.M.

"9. That if you speak to a woman in the street you are run in.

"10. That if you walk in the Park after sunset you will be spied on
and probably arrested.

"11. That if you stay six months--but nobody would be such a fool--you
will pay 4/-income tax on every 20/-.

"12. That there are few trains on Sundays (a large place like Whitby
is cut off from London on that day); no theatres on Sunday (should
appeal to Continental visitors); museums open only in the afternoons;
shops shut on Sundays and on one week-day afternoon, including
post-offices; and everything more expensive than anywhere else.

"When I return to England from abroad, I always feel as if I were
going back to school.

"I forgot to say that they had a meeting of the COME TO BRITAIN
movement the other day, at which lovely prospects were opened up. Lord
Reading, however, urged that different kinds of prohibitions should be
abolished, so that the life of the tourist could be made easier. Just
note his words. He said: _Do not prevent the foreigner spending his
money at restaurants and theatres as soon as he arrives by detaining
him while he tries to master all the regulations he must observe in
order to make his stay safe_.

"In order to make his stay _safe_....

"In short: COME TO BRITAIN, where--apart from the filthy climate--you
will be bored to death by lack of amusement, poisoned by bad food,
officially persecuted, and commercially fleeced."

... If this be correct, Americans may prefer a trip to the East.

* * *

MY FRIEND refers to the Dover Customs examination, and to-day's paper
very appositely contains the following note:

"A renewed attack on alleged British methods of examining French
visitors to England is made to-night by the Paris _Soir_, and, in the
course of a fiery denunciation, a demand is made for reprisals on
English people entering France.

"The paper, referring to the 'odious examination to which French
people are still subjected entering England," says that it was
generally believed that the practice had ceased, but this is not the
case.

"The Customs officials at English ports, it alleges, chooses (_sic_)
whom they like for this inspection, and reference is made to French
girls of 15 and 16, going to England to complete their studies, being
submitted to 'outrageous examination.'

"Witnesses can be produced in support of these statements, continues
the Paris _Soir_, which says that the only way to put an end to the
scandal is for English people entering France to be made to undergo a
similar examination."

They sometimes are....

A few days ago, as we were coming out of the Ventimiglia (French)
Customs office, I saw a venerable old Englishman's pocket rifled by
one of these ruffians, who drew therefrom a handkerchief and one or
two more valueless articles. Doubtless a Corsican savage, like so
many of them. The French authorities seem to be unaware of the
discredit they bring on themselves by entrusting such positions to
Corsicans. If no Frenchmen are available, why not employ Senegalese
natives, and have done with it?

And here we are, in every part of Europe, putting up with similar
outrages at every hour of the day or night--the passport nuisance, and
all the rest of them. Nobody raises a hand, or even a voice, to batter
down these indignities. We suffer; we are grateful if our lives be
spared. What lovely material, if one wanted to breed a race of
helots!

Gobineau was right when he said that "there is no doubt that slavery
sometimes has a legitimate basis, and we are almost justified in
laying down that in this case it results quite as much from the
consent of the slave as from the moral and physical predominance of
the master."

The author of _Mother India_ has a clever chapter on "Indian
_Slave-Mentality_."

How about our own slave-mentality?

* * *

THERE are such things as bedside books, and one of them is Wallace's
_Malay Archipelago_. Glancing into it the other evening, I
rediscovered the following noteworthy passage:

"This motley, ignorant, bloodthirsty, thievish population [he is
speaking of one of the Aru Islands] live here without the shadow of a
Government, with no police, no courts, and no lawyers; yet they do
not cut each other's throats; do not plunder each other day and night;
do not fall into the anarchy such a state of things might be supposed
to lead to. It is very extraordinary! It puts strange thoughts into
one's head about the mountain-load of government under which people
exist in Europe, and suggests the idea that we may be overgoverned.
Think of the hundred Acts of Parliament annually enacted to prevent
us, the people of England, from cutting each other's throats, or from
doing to our neighbours as we would _not_ be done by. Think of the
thousands of lawyers and barristers whose whole lives are spent in
telling us what the hundred Acts of Parliament mean, and one would be
led to infer that if Dobbo has too little law, England has too
much.... Trade is the magic that keeps all at peace, and unites these
discordant elements into a well-behaved community."

These Oriental ruffians, it appears, can do without laws and yet live
peaceably, owing to trade. There is trade here also. Due allowance
made for our more complex social structure, was it necessary that
since 1911 seventeen different National Insurance Acts should have
been passed? The Prime Minister recently told the House of Commons
that in the last three years five thousand Statutory Rules and Orders,
possessing the force of law, have been issued. Were all of them
necessary? Perhaps yes--in the sense that their object was to bolster
up or modify preceding ones, half of which need never have been issued
at all. A vast system of buttresses, buttressing each other into
infinity....

Mother India has had a fair dose of such extravagances. During the
first ten years of the present century twenty-five thousand new laws
have been inscribed on her Statute Book (H. M. Hyndman: _The
Awakening of Asia_, p. 207) in order to govern men who for untold ages
have governed themselves without any written legislation whatever,
save of the religious kind.

* * *

ONE would like to know how much of an Englishman's time and energy is
consumed in trying to circumvent regulations which ought not to exist.
Says the _Saturday Review_. "It is rare, these days, to find a
respectable suburban paterfamilias who does not land himself in a
police-court twice a year."Parliamentary meddlesomeness has become an
obsession. And then, the muddlesomeness of all those unnecessary local
bodies....

Mr. Clive Bell, speaking of this frenzy for legislation, observes that
an ordinary Englishman is, on the whole, less free than a Roman slave
in the time of Hadrian. He attributes this state of affairs largely to
the activities of elderly and embittered virgins; nor should I be
surprised to learn that there is a correlation between sex-lessness
and repressive legislation, and that many of the discomforts of life
in England are due to eunuchs of one kind or another.

I suspect none the less that a considerable number of these elderly
virgins are middle-aged men, equally sexless and therefore equally
devoid of tolerance, but more mulish than any woman has the
strength to be. I do not question what the spinster would call her
good intentions; I question her staying-power. That is why, when it
comes to imbecility, nobody can beat a male.

* * *

HERE is an instance of that official interference in a man's private
affairs which, to an Oriental mind, is unbelievable:

We all know what a dog-kennel is--a worthless wooden structure which
can be broken to pieces in less than five minutes. Not long ago a
friend of mine was putting up such a contrivance (they are bought
ready made; you have only to fit the pieces together) on part of his
own English property bought with good money, to wit, in his back
garden. Shortly afterwards the District Surveyor called to say: was my
friend aware that he had rendered himself liable to a penalty? There
ensued a lengthy and lively correspondence with the Borough Council,
which, taking into consideration the fact that the kennel was erected
in ignorance of that special by-law, or whatever the contemptible
regulation calls itself, condoned the offence on the understanding
that a regular licence would be taken out, price five shillings.

A characteristic detail: the licence to erect a dog-kennel in your
back garden expires after five years, but can be renewed provided the
authorities see no objection.

_De minimis non curat lex_....

If that surveyor had approached one of my old Turkish acquaintances
with his remarks, the kennel would have been cracked over his head.
And if we followed his example, this particular nuisance would soon be
abated.

* * *

GOVERNED to death....

The _Nation_ draws attention to the inquisitorial methods of
Government departments which insist on Civil servants disclosing how
they pass their time outside the office. I should like to have the
text of this order; it is humiliating to the last degree. Soon they
will be wanting to know the yearly amount of their employes' washing
bills.

Having been a Civil servant myself, I feel no great sympathy for those
who refuse to bolt out of that treadmill; let us hope, at all events,
that they will put up a stand against such a piece of insolence. The
underlying idea is no doubt that in their spare time some ten per
cent, of them--it cannot be more--may have an occupation which, on
being revealed, will enable the Treasury to rake in a little more
income tax; so the _Nation_ thinks, adding that "the income-tax
inquisition is now so pitiless and intolerable that decent citizens
have almost reached the point of sympathizing with evaders." I
understand that some decent citizens have reached that point long,
long ago.

A trifle, but symptomatic of the general trend of things.

We once had a remedy against such abuses in the _Truth_ of Labouchere.
He would have ferreted out the origins of this new order, nailed down
the idiot who drew it up, and asked him what he meant by it. How he
used to make the Government departments tremble! An exposure in
_Truth_ was the only thing they dreaded. Private complaints were
shelved or evaded; as to questions in Parliament--they revelled in
them, as they do to this day. Labby was the wild-beast tamer. He has
left no successor of sufficient authority, sufficient wit, and
sufficient courage.

There were Government departments and thousands of Civil servants
under Kublai Khan, whose immense realm was administered as efficiently
as the British Empire. It may be that he also encouraged this prying
system, but I doubt it. Must we go to Toledo to find its counterpart?
No; because there, once you subscribed to certain opinions, you were
left in peace. In England, in Europe generally, you are harried
from pillar to post by perpetually changing bureaucratic ordinances.

* * *

OFFICIALDOM:

"Because his front identification-plate had letters and numbers which
were one and a half inches longer than the prescribed size, F---D--,
motor driver, of Walmer Road, Kensington, was fined 5/--at Tower
Bridge Court yesterday.

"Mr. Tassell said he could not see what objection there could be to
the letters being too large, though there was some to their being too
small."

Now how would this be:

"His Worship Tassa Lai, observing that there was a limit to this kind
of thing, ordered Mr. D--'s accuser to pay him five hundred rupees as
compensation for frivolous prosecution, and to receive fifty strokes
of the bastinado for wasting the Court's time on matters which
constitute no complaint."

That might discourage some of them.

* * *

OFFICIALDOM:

"Mrs. A---G--, an Englishwoman who married an alien, was bound over at
Lambeth Police Court on Saturday on a summons for failing to notify
her change of address under the Alien Regulations. She stated that she
was born of British parents, had never been out of England, and had
not lived with her husband for eight years."

London must be a cheery place for Englishwomen with non-English
husbands--a poor sub-statute, maybe, but better than nothing. What
else are some of them to procure, seeing that there are not enough
Englishmen to go round?

"At Enfield last week Mr. L---A---was summoned for keeping a dog
without having a licence. He found the dog in a starved condition,
took it home and fed it. He then reported his find to the police, to
be rewarded for his kindness by receiving a summons next day."

Mr. Fowler Wright (_Police and Public_, p. 135) remarks that _at
least nine-tenths of the summonses which are Issued at the Instigation
of the police are--public nuisances, vexatious ana needless_. Mr.
Wright's little volume was banned in advance by the railway
bookstalls.

* * *

RIBALD persons used to say: Wake up, Britain! Easier said than done.
The Anglo-Saxon is hard to wake up, being phlegmatic and
self-righteous to such a degree that the only thing which will really
wake him up is brute force. Sad, but true. We have seen it lately in
two cases. If women had not taken to smashing windows and other acts
of violence they would never have been emancipated; their arguments
would have been shelved, as they always had been, out of sheer
laziness. And the Irish, after centuries of wobbling and
half-measures, at last grasped the truth. They took to arson and
murder in good style; they scared the Anglo-Saxon and obtained what
they would have obtained ages ago, had they realized that their best
hope lay in shattering the inertia of Westminster. Those who suffer
under the harassing restrictions of life in England might make a note
of the fact that intimidation, not speechifying, will rouse the
Parliamentarians out of their post-prandial coma.

The complacency of the English has been wounded lately in three
sensitive spots: we have had infraction of naval discipline, police
corruption, and malpractices at the P.O. Something, after all,
seems to be rotten in the state of Denmark.

Now Mr. Garratt knows his India. What he writes is worth pondering.
Perhaps Britain may yet wake up, or be wakened up, to the fact that
"Indian civilization is healthy, spiritual, and in every way
admirable. Any corruption is due first to Moslem and subsequently to
British aggression. Western civilization, lacking all spiritual
significance, is rotten at the core.... In twenty years' time Indian
politicians may be looking to Turkey or Persia for models of efficient
administration for an Asiatic people living under Oriental
conditions.... A return to the paternal justice administered in many
Indian states is unthinkable, but it is a matter for consideration
whether the present system, already so very bad, can get any worse."

_P.S_. A critic, reviewing Mr. Woolacott's _India on Trial_, says of
the native that "People who cannot read or write are _ipso facto_
incapable of governing themselves on representative European
lines." That is perfectly correct. Why should Indians be expected to
govern themselves on our lines? I feel sure they prefer Oriental
methods, entailing the inevitable amount of instability and
insecurity, to the provincial stagnation which English rule is
imposing on them. The critic adds: "The political interest of those
who cannot read cannot even be aroused." Perfectly correct, once more;
and so much the better. There is already too much political interest
among Indians. Why arouse more?

* * *

IT STANDS to reason that this state of affairs is produced not by lack
of talent or good-will, but by our adherence to the Roman principle of
an inflexible administration on more or less European lines.

Indeed, whoever knows the climate and other discomforts of India
cannot be too emphatic in praise of our Civil Service, and it does one
good to hear what authoritative and dispassionate non-English
observers have to say on the subject. A Frenchman, J. Barthelemy
Saint-Hilaire, writes: "Vainly we seek in history for anything like
this, and even the greatest of all nations, the Romans, showed no such
example of humanity and devotion in a great cause." The Austrian Baron
von Hubner says of our Indian Civil servants that as regards culture,
technical knowledge, statesmanlike qualities and spotless integrity
they are surpassed by no bureaucracy on earth, adding that "even when
we take the pessimist's point of view, we cannot deny that British
India offers a spectacle which is without parallel in the world's
history."

Among others there is also the testimony of a Swiss which, provoked as
it was in an accidental manner, is of special value.

I happened to be in India during the famine of 1900, and shall not
soon forget what I saw. The sufferers looked as if they had been dug
up from their graves, being reduced to such a state of emaciation that
one asked oneself how a breath of life could still pervade these
motionless anatomical exhibits. There, on the spot, I was able to
convince myself of the efforts made by our Civil staff to alleviate
the misery, and also to compare them with the system adopted in a
Native State. In England, meanwhile, this visitation was made the
pretext for an attack in Parliament on the injustice and inefficiency
of British rule in India. The _Neue Zurcher Zei-tung_, a journal which
ought to have known better, printed some of this and other fustian in
its correspondence columns, and this in its turn led to the
publication of a remarkable counter-attack of 93 pages by a Swiss
gentleman, who demolished both the false reasoning and the deliberate
misstatements of that newspaper correspondence (_Die Hungersnot in
Indien und die britisch-indische Regierung_, von Aug. F. Amman;
Frauenfeld, J. Huber, 1901).

This succinct and lucid brochure gives a bird's-eye view, so to speak,
of British activities in India, and deserves, even at this hour of the
day, to be translated out of the German. I note that the author agrees
with others (p. 28) in finding that, apart from public calamities like
plague or famine, "the lot of the so-called 'ordinary man' in India is
far happier than that of his European colleague."

* * *

SOMEWHERE in the Coelo-Syrian plain stands a tall and lonely column,
the column of Ya'at. We walked there one evening, and my companion
assured me that it was erected by the Crusaders, years and years ago.

That was a modern yarn, I said; anybody could see from the
construction of the thing.... Impossible to convince him! He was a
Syrian; he knew all about his country. The Crusaders passed that very
way, consequently they built it.

They may well have passed that way on their long overland trip from
Cologne to Jerusalem, and to ascertain whether or no they built this
particular column is of less interest than to ascertain how they
contrived to get here at all without a single passport between them.
How was that feat accomplished? A short time ago I followed more or
less the same overland track from Europe as far as Damascus, and even
for that distance no less than five visas were required. The expense
incurred in procuring this trashy stamp, though considerable, is
nothing when compared to the loss of time. But for the good offices of
a friend in authority, I might have spent the better part of a week
hanging around the consulates of five disreputable little "Powers," at
the mercy of their unwashed employes. If the brutes would at least
take a bribe, and get through with their work! Alas, incorruptibility
is the fetish of the half-civilized.

The amenities of life in Europe....

Is the visa-plague ever going to end?

Those who recall the ease of pre-passport days, and who like to live
with as little vexation as possible, will view with concern this
particular development of the labelling-disease of European
Governments. You can live without friends, without wife or children or
money or tobacco; you can live without a shirt, without a reputation;
you cannot live without a document establishing your servitude to
bureaucracy. A man's passport or _carte d'identite_ is beginning to be
of greater consequence than his person, and for a good reason. It
makes him authentic. If Mr. Jones, the European, cannot produce a
passport, he is a solar myth.

Such is the official point of view, and the shortest way of
demonstrating its fallacy would be a punch in the ribs from Mr. Jones.

May it come soon, and often....

* * *

IT WILL be long in coming.

Mr. Jones is well broken in. He is a devitalized creature. The
official herd is too strong for him. It has insinuated into his mind
that a passport consoles him for many ills; he must cleave to it, else
he may find himself landed in prison. Such is the bureaucratic
system. It invents a dilemma, and then, by means of the
passport-talisman, shows him a way out of it. All Mr. Jones has to do
is to pay, pay, pay--in order to keep the animals at their desks.

Ten to one, he is a bureaucrat himself. That being so, the system must
be upheld and extended whenever possible. Officials will soon
outnumber the population, and no wonder they fight to keep the
machinery going. They live by it. Where a man's income is, there will
his heart be also.

The passport-nuisance, as it now exists, was unknown before the War.
It is part of the ignoble tangle in which we have thereby embroiled
ourselves. A vast deal of such governmental interference has not even
this justification, being sheer meddlesomeness, costly to the nation
and obnoxious to the individual. Mr. Clive Bell has dealt with this
subject, and his analysis of the meddler's psychology ("those who
cannot express themselves except by interfering with others") is a
sound one. I should now like to read a psychological study of his
victims, of those who make the meddler possible, the passive
dirt-eaters who love being ill-treated in the name of law and order.

Of the two mentalities, I prefer the meddler's.

He is at least active.

* * *

I HAVE visited American missionary stations in South India, meddlesome
concerns which are discouraged in certain other British dominions, and
where they show you an up-to-date operating-room but forget to offer
you a whisky-and-soda for luncheon (one must know India, to realize
fully what that means). They cannot be called successful, and even
of the most successful missionary out there it has been rightly said
that he "produces a hybrid caste, not quite European, not quite
Indian, with the originality killed out of them, with self-reliance
weakened, with all mental aspirations wrenched violently in a
direction which is not their own." These converts are apt to be
unreliable; indeed, the inferiority of the Oriental Christian, whether
convert or not, is proverbial, and those who really know the East,
like Layard, have testified to it in clear language. A commendable
form of meddlesomeness is that of a Howard or Shaftsbury. One cannot
blame Christianity for originating the most discommendable form--that
which occupies itself with other people's spiritual well-being. It
started, so far as we are concerned, with Pythagoras, though the
Christians, once they began to exist, soon claimed it as a specialty
of their own invention. They brought it to a fine state of perfection
here, in India. At Goa, the metropolis of Christian India, where every
form of vice, except drunkenness, was practised by both sexes, and
where slaves were sold by auction in the main street, the burnings of
heretics to the glory of God were so incessant that the local tribunal
of the Inquisition was not long in earning a sinister renown as the
most pitiless in Christendom, which implied a good deal.

Compare this Christian meddlesomeness with that of the Brahman. No
nation was ever so priest-ridden as the Indian, yet "the same people
were allowed to indulge in the most unrestrained freedom of thought,
and in the schools of their philosophy the very names of their gods
were never mentioned. Their existence was neither denied nor asserted"
(Max Mueller).

* * *

PASSPORT-ANNOYANCES notwithstanding, it has become part of my
programme to escape Eastwards now and then, if only for a couple of
weeks, out of this murk. I do not mean the murk of 280 tons of solid
matter which are deposited yearly from the sky on every square mile of
London; I mean another kind of murk. One returns refreshed and
readjusted--ready to face the devil once more.

Who is the devil?

That air of pointless preoccupation. It hangs about like influenza,
infecting the sanest and most self-possessed of us. You encounter it
in every walk of life and every grade of society: complications and
glumness, with feverish streaks in between; in a word, fluster. There
is as much grace and dignity in a European existence just now as there
is in a fat bourgeoise running after an omnibus. The Americanization
of life on this continent may have contributed its share; it has
infused a note of impermanence. Gregarious and homeless, fearing
solitude as never before, our European is losing his idiosyncrasy.
Hustle is his opiate, his refuge from self.

We seem to be side-tracked--victims of ( H4) catchwords and indecorous
social habits; we have lost our bearings in the search after gladness,
if gladness be what we are seeking. And what else should an
intelligent man seek? Intelligence ... how about our European variety?
Cleverness, yes; but intelligence? I have lost faith in it since the
Great War, and after. A continent which can make such an exhibition of
itself is not to be taken seriously.

* * *

I THINK there was more life, or at least more living, in the Yellow
Book period. There was certainly more laughter. We were ready to laugh
at anything, even at our comic papers. What has happened to them--to
_Fun_, and _Judy_, and _Moonshine_, and _Pick-Me-Up_, and _Ally
Sloper_ of 99 Shoe Lane? Asphyxiated in the murk....

No great loss but, once more, symptomatic. In Meredith Townsend's
Asia and Europe there is a suggestive chapter on the charm of Asia for
Asiatics. It contains the reflections of Vefyk Pasha, at one time
Turkish Minister in Paris, who summarizes neatly the Oriental point of
view. I quote just the beginning and the end:

"What I complain of is the mode of life. I am oppressed not by the
official duties--they are easy, Turkey has few affairs--but by the
social ones. I have had to write fifteen notes this morning, all about
trifles.... My liberal friends here complain of the want of political
liberty. What I complain of is the want of social liberty; it is far
more important. Few people suffer from the despotism of a Government,
and those suffer only occasionally. But this social despotism, this
despotism of salons, this code of arbitrary little reglements,
observances, prohibitions, and exigencies, affects everybody, and
every day, and every hour."

The Oriental, of whatever standing, is too much of a democrat not to
resent this social pressure impinging on his freedom of action. He
has no regard for the snobbery which underlies it.

Hindus come in for some hard words in _Mother India_ and elsewhere.
One thing can nevertheless be said for them: they have not lost their
blitheness. They know what leisure means. I suppose our inability to
be alone and our restlessness of mind is a diluted form of that of the
true neurasthenic, whose existence as a stable and independent unit
has become a burden to him. (A charming modern disease! Neurasthenia
turns a man into the wrong kind of woman.) Far too many excellent
people are rushing about needlessly, groaning under a load of duties
to be performed and puzzling how to avoid them. When a duty ceases to
be a pleasure, then it ceases to exist. I recommend this maxim to
those who would like to be masters of their own lives.

Hindus are not afflicted with the fidgets. Neither are these Syrians,
whether Arabs or Christians. They do not imagine, like Europeans, that
they are driving a machine because they happen to be tangled up in its
works. It does one good to watch them sitting on the grass in merry
groups under their apricots and walnuts, laughing and chatting and
playing games, and nibbling, from time to time, at a fresh lettuce
leaf--local substitute for a glass of beer.

The simple life?

Orientals are not simple folk. They know how to take their ease.

* * *

THEY have another enviable quality: they adapt themselves to reverses
of fortune. They bend. In circumstances where a European can think of
nothing more sensible than to commit suicide, they find no difficulty
in maintaining their equanimity.

The other day an Englishman was found dying with a sponge soaked in
poison tied over his mouth, and in his pocket a piece of paper, on
which were written the words: "The law is an ass. I suppose it will
think this is murder."

Verdict: suicide while of unsound mind.

It is a specialty of English law to regard suicide as a crime. The
impertinence! Man being master of his life--it will soon be the only
thing he can call his own--suicide is his inalienable right; and it is
in accordance with the meddlesome spirit of our legislation that it
should endeavour to deprive him of this right, and in accordance with
our ingrained hypocrisy to invent that ignoble fiction of an unsound
mind.

If you attempt suicide you are a criminal: if you succeed you are a
lunatic. I should like to know whether this dictum has ever deterred a
would-be suicide from his purpose. Were all the suicides of antiquity
of unsound mind? Must one be mad, in order to perform the most solemn
act of which humanity is capable?

Some ancients, like Cicero and Plotinus, were of opinion that it was
not good to destroy oneself under the influence of any kind of passion
from which the soul suffers. This is a doctrine which permits of
discussion; it is not our doctrine. We regard the matter from
another angle. Christian morality, which suggests that a man's life
is given him on trust, lies at the bottom of English legal ruling.

It lies at the bottom of a deal of rubbish. Our whole legislation is
poisoned at the roots. Where are the roots? In the ethics of the
Bible. I once wrote that "Theology has left the Mark of the Beast upon
our Statute Book." It reeks of Se-miticism. The theologian's hoof is
everywhere discernible, and we can hardly congratulate ourselves, as
white men, on being at the mercy of theories which were elaborated
ages ago to suit the convenience of tawny Israelites.

Has the world not changed since then?

* * *

CONSIDERING how long ago Genesis and the rest of them were written,
those theories were not discreditable to their authors. They are
discreditable to ourselves; and it would be a commendable task to draw
up a list of still existing anomalies in our European legal usage
whose sole _raison d'etre_ is some text in those tribal ordinances of
long ago. Even the most preposterous of them, like that concerning
witches--how slow they are to die!

"And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of
every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man....If an ox gore
a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned,
and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be
quit...."

The last beast-trial based on this injunction took place during the
lifetime of some of us, in the year 1864, when a sow, which had bitten
off the ears of a child, was solemnly condemned to death, its flesh
being thrown to the dogs.

In point of place, France was the centre of such practices; in point
of time, the fifteenth century. The first French trial of an accused
animal occurred in 1283, the last in 1845; the sentences are often
motivated by phrases like "en detestation et horreur du dit cas" or
"poor la cruaute et ferocite commise."

It must not be supposed that these affairs were a mockery. They were
conducted before the secular courts, with judges, prosecuting and
defending counsel; and the criminal, if condemned to death, was
sentenced with all the formality of law, which laid down the manner of
execution--whether by hanging, burying alive, stoning, burning, or
decapitation--and which saw to it that the order was carried out by
the usual public functionary and at the usual spot, whereto the
condemned beast was dragged like any human being. Lighter punishments
were inflicted for lighter offences. In the seventeenth century a dog
was sentenced in Austria to a term of imprisonment; a French pig,
which had mauled the arms and face of a child, paid for the crime by
the loss of its snout and one leg. In very mild cases (a Sardinian
specialty) the animal was deprived of one ear. The sentences did not
always err on the side of lenity. Thus a cock was condemned to be
burnt at Basle in 1474 for the peccadillo of laying an egg.

Mosaic Law, the "Will of the Bible," was invoked in justification of
such proceedings.

Some instances verge on the incredible. In 1479 the destructive larvae
of the cockchafer were cited, and actually produced in considerable
numbers, before the Court of Berne, which granted them a legal
representative in the person of a well-known advocate of Freiburg. In
Spain, offending animals were often banished to a remote island;
elsewhere a tract of land was allotted to them under the condition
that they were not to stray from it.

It is not surprising to learn that the very first of these trials, in
1283, was already condemned on grounds of common sense by Philippe de
Beaumanoir, a writer, and that other opponents, laymen and
theologians, cropped up continuously during the centuries. What is
surprising is that they persisted none the less and found capable
defenders, such as the famous _Malleolus_ (Felix Hemmerlin of Zurich)
and the Burgundian jurist Chasseneus. Their last official
champion was Samuel Stryckins in 1704. The tenacity of nonsense!

We may laugh at these punishments inflicted upon unreasoning beasts of
the earth in the name of the Bible. Yet our law-book is saturated with
mischievous rules drawn from the same source which call not for
laughter but for the reverse. One thinks, for example, of the
ferocious sentences meted out to rustic half-wits for indulging in the
bucolic sin of "bestiality"--a fragment, and not the most noxious one,
of our legacy from those pastoral goat-keepers and Jahveh-worshippers.

* * *

THE dawn of history is not the dawn of the human race, as our
grandparents were taught to believe. Only last week, so to say, have
we discovered our body to be a perambulating museum of oddities not
only useless but liable to give a deal of trouble--functional relics
which before the dawn of history must have served some purpose. There
they are; you may sometimes cut them away, but never argue them away.
Though the Jews knew nothing about them, no doctor of to-day would
hesitate to recognize their significance.

A reasonable jurisprudence will take account, and not only
empirically, of corresponding mental survivals, obscure but
uncontrollable impulses which refuse to fit themselves into to-day's
categories. The Jews knew nothing about them. Nor did the men who
compiled our Statute Book, seeing that it was elaborated on the
assumption that mankind was only about four thousand years old--in
which case, these promptings from our unexplored pre-history would be
non-existent.

There they are, nevertheless, dating from several hundred thousand
years before Moses was found in the bulrushes, and not to be argued
away; you might as well argue away your pylo-(l55) rus. Scientists may
investigate their origin and development; lawgivers should recognize
their existence and frame enactments accordingly.

If judges were lawgivers and not dispensers of law this could be done.
They find themselves blocked, unfortunately, by some ludicrous Act
passed by a handful of vote-hunting politicians--blocked, although
any single one of them possesses a keener insight into humanity than
fifty of these same politicians rolled into one. Acts sit tight, while
social conditions change and our knowledge of man's nature moves
forwards; the discrepancy between law and reason is often acute.

"The time has come," said Lord Buckmaster not long ago, "for a
complete revision of our penal laws...."

I have elsewhere ventured to observe that the most enlightened of
legislators will hesitate to engraft the fruits of modern
psychological research upon the tree of law, lest the scion prove too
vigorous for the aged vegetable. The experiment of grafting common
sense here and there might now be risked, since that complete revision
of our penal laws, however desiderable, is not likely to take place
before Doomsday.

* * *

THERE reached me not long ago the luxurious translation of Nietzsche's
_Antichrist_ published by the Fanfrolico Press of London. He ought
to be alive to see it; and to see a popular four-penny edition as
well. The book was written during that blissful period of well-being
which preceded his breakdown.

Five words have arrested my attention: "our wretched little planet,
Earth..."

It is long since I studied Nietzsche, but, speaking wholly from
memory, I should say that this passage is unique in his writings. In
all those volumes devoted to the patching-up of mankind he took them
at their own valuation and judged them from their own point of view;
the planets, even our Earth, were not consulted. Such is the way of
lyrical thinkers: to deduce rules for the guidance of human creatures
without enquiring by what laws those creatures came to be human at
all. It is doubtless difficult, and he found it difficult, to yield
gracefully to our beliefs and institutions if we fail to take account
of unavoidable limitations--the physical conditions under which we
have painfully grown and survived, and that driving-force of our own
dim past which each of us carries within him.

Nietzsche hints at these things more than once; for instance, when he
says that at the roots of our being lies something unteachable, "the
granite of a spiritual destiny, of predetermined judgments and
answers"; he hints at them; but to regard mankind frankly as a solar
product never occurred to him.

Mankind is nothing else.

* * *

HE WAS in contact with the biological movement of his day, yet the
shattering import of what these men discovered seems to have escaped
him altogether. Herbert Spencer has a "tea-grocer's philosophy." I
confess to detecting in Spencer, for all his prodigious apparatus, a
note of complacency and even smugness; I can imagine how a phrase like
"those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits are blind to
most of the poetry by which they are surrounded" must have maddened
the poetic Nietzsche. And Darwin is a "mediocre Englishman." The fact
is, Nietzsche could not bear to be told that he was descended from
something like a monkey. Man was the measure of his universe. This
anthropo-centric attitude, which comes naturally to metaphysicians of
average calibre, is remarkable in Nietzsche, who was so austere, so
superior to all of them in ruthless integrity. A man with his passion
for communing with nature, with his reverence for the "terrible beauty
of solitude," might have realized, one thinks, that the universe would
be an indifferent concern, if man were its measure.

The Poles I have known were anthropocentric to a marked degree; much
more so than Englishmen. I cannot guess the reason, unless it be a
remnant of that eighteenth-century French veneer which still
distinguishes them among Europeans, and which the French themselves
have worn off long ago. (Copernicus, a Pole and the least
anthropocentric of humans, died before the veneer was laid on.)
Nietzsche was proud of the Polish blood of the Nietzkys in his veins:
can it be a drop of that? Whatever the reason, his disparagement of
men who brought order into our conceptions of human development is a
queer feudal trait, and vitiates his cosmic outlook here and there.

* * *

THE business of life is to enjoy oneself; everything else is a
mockery. Nietzsche's ideal of enjoyment was to indulge with
enviable zest in the all-too-human pastime of trying to make the crab
walk straight. He threw himself into this task, as Dr. Oscar Levy
somewhere says, with the noble rage of a Hebrew prophet. Seriously
concerned with the spiritual welfare of mankind, he took their little
eccentricities to heart and cursed them roundly, and rightly. His
explosions have made a clearing in our jungle of unreason; one of
those bare, sporadic patches where the sun can penetrate to earth, and
where a gentleman can take his pleasure.

Sporadic, and temporary; for now the clearing is being overgrown once
more. Such is the way of jungles. Obscurantism, anaemia of thought,
are more prevalent than in Nietzsche's day, and our standardization of
low intellectual values proceeds so relentlessly that a European
possessing but a fraction of his courage and originality will
hereafter be classified not as a contributor to enlightenment but as a
freak, a throw-back. Such is the way of man.

This suggests that a smattering of palaeon-(lel) tology, and a glance
at Sirius now and then, would have helped to steady Nietzsche's views
in regard to creatures whose capacity for assimilating knowledge is so
limited, and who, whatever their capacity, would be polished off the
face of this earth by a few additional degrees of heat or cold.

* * *

ACCORDING to the privilege of disinterested and strenuous thinkers,
Nietzsche changed his mind now and then. He changed it in regard to
the Code of Manu. In an earlier work he said it was "founded on a holy
lie... everywhere the lie was copied, and thus Arian influence
corrupted the world." In this _Antichrist_ he finds that it is
"replete with noble values" and has "come into being like a good
law-book."

Manu's Tables have been spoken of as an invention of the priests. You
might as well call Aristotle's _Poetics_ an invention. These things
are not inventions; they are deductions. The principle of caste is
founded on the fact that men are not equal. One may suspect that Manu
was further aware of the biological truth that particular talents are
prone to run in families, and that he therefore elaborated his system
inductively: if in families, why not in allied family-groups forming
themselves by persistive selection and intermarriage into corporations
or guilds of musicians, doctors, servants and so forth? In pursuit of
this ideal he grew a little pig-headed; such is the way of all
law-givers, not excluding Moses and Jesus Christ.

Though there is no hint in the Veda of the caste-system, which would
seem to be rooted in differences of racial colour, it is a matter of
experience that men fall naturally into castes. Even in England, where
our very faces betray the impurity of our breeding, we can dispense
with neither the word nor the thing. Caste-feeling underlies every
form of refinement; it is a man's best prophylactic against that
mass-feeling which would make a cypher of him. Manu's deduction is
both logical and practical. No doubt such things are sometimes
threatened with what looks like arterio-sclerosis, as was the case
with the caste-system on the advent of Buddhism; or even with sudden
death: is there anything more logical and practical than Free Trade?
Parliamentary government sounds logical and practical, yet ours is
menaced with senile decay if not downright liquefaction, the Party
System having been brought to such a pitch that no Member can call his
soul his own. It has become a farce.

Caste is no farce. It rests on firmer foundations than anything which
the Western world has hitherto devised.

* * *

OUR own ancients give us glimpses into the beneficent operation of
Manu's laws. On three occasions does Megasthenes note the
inviolability of the Indian cultivator caste; he tells us that men of
this class, being regarded as public benefactors, are protected from
all injury, and that even when war is raging around them, those
engaged in agriculture remain unmolested at their tasks.

In war, moreover, "they never ravage an enemy's land with fire, nor
cut down its trees [compare this with what happened during the last
European war]... theft is almost unheard ofj they neither put out
money at usury nor know how to borrow; truth and virtue they hold
alike in esteem. Hence they accord no special privileges to the old
unless they possess superior wisdom [compare this with our
superannuated dodderers in authority]... These things indicate that
they possess sound, sober sense." Marco Polo tells us that the
Brahmins are "the best and most honourable merchants that can be
found. No consideration whatever can induce them to speak an untruth,
even though their lives should depend upon it."

Not fear of the law, but the fear of losing caste, was responsible for
this state of affairs. The toughest opponents of Alexander the Great
were the Indians under Poros, and the Greeks were loud in their
praises of these people; never in their eight years of constant
warfare had they met with such skilled and gallant soldiers, who,
moreover, surpassed in stature and bearing all the other races of
Asia. These were Hindus; Mohammedanism had not yet been invented. It
was Hindus again--Mahrattas, Sikhs, and our own Sepoys--who gave most
trouble to the British. The author of _Mother India_ has a marked
belief in the warlike qualities of Mohammedans.

Diodorus Siculus gives us a hint how this selection of the fittest
came about. "Hence Alexander led his army to the cities belonging to
So-phites, which were governed by most excellent laws; among the rest
they strictly observe this--To value their beauty and comely
proportion above all other things; and therefore they carefully
examine every part of the child when it is in the cradle, and such as
are sound and perfect in every limb and member, and likely to be
strong and comely, they nurse and bring up; but such as are lame and
deficient, and of a weak habit of body, they kill, as not worth the
rearing. They have the same regard to their marriages; for without
any regard to portion, or any other advantages, they only mind the
beauty of the person and the health and strength of their bodies."

How convenient we should have found it lately to possess a warrior
caste! Instead of that, we sent into the trenches thousands who were
unsuited for this profession by temperament, antecedents and physique;
thousands who had counterbalancing aptitudes of the highest utility.
What we have lost by the sacrifice of valuable persons unfitted for
war--artists, teachers, thinkers, bankers, scholars, officials,
inventors--cannot be repaired in a short generation.

A Warrior Caste would have avoided the wastage.

* * *

AS TO the millions of Untouchables (some of them are very
touchable)--we have them in Europe also, and I wish they were
differentiated from others, and officially ear-marked, as they are in
India. Of the two varieties I prefer the Indian one.

Haeckel, that dry professor who writes as if he had discovered
Veligama in Ceylon, thus describes one of its inhabitants:

"It really seemed as though I should be pursued by the familiar
aspects of classical antiquity from the first moment of my arrival at
my idyllic home. For, as Socrates [the rest-house keeper] led me up
the steps into the open central hall of the rest-house, I saw before
me, with uplifted arms in an attitude of prayer, a beautiful naked,
brown figure, which could be nothing else than the famous statue of
the 'Youth Adoring.' How surprised I was when the graceful bronze
statue suddenly came to life, and dropping his arms fell on his knees,
and after raising his black eyes imploringly to my face bowed his
handsome face so low that his long black hair fell on the floor!
Socrates informed me that this boy was a Pariah, a member of the
lowest caste, the Rodiyas, who had lost his parents at an early age,
so he had taken pity on him. He was told off to my exclusive service,
had nothing to do the livelong day but to obey my wishes, and was a
good boy, sure to do his duty punctually. In answer to the question
what I was to call my new body-servant, the old man informed me that
his name was Gamameda (from Gama, a village, and Meda--middle). Of
course, I immediately thought of Ganymede, for the favourite of Jove
himself could not have been more finely made, or have had limbs more
beautifully proportioned and moulded....

"... Among the many beautiful figures which move in the foreground of
my memories of the paradise of Ceylon, Ganymede remains one of my
dearest favourites. Not only did he fulfil his duties with the
greatest attention and conscientiousness, but he developed a personal
attachment and devotion to me which touched me deeply. The poor boy,
as a miserable outcast of the Rodiya caste, had been from his birth
the object of the deepest contempt of his fellow-men, and subjected to
every sort of brutality and ill-treatment. With the single exception
of old Socrates, who was not too gentle with him either, no one
perhaps had ever cared for him in any way.... After this the grateful
Ganymede followed me like a shadow, and tried to read my wishes in my
eyes. Hardly was I out of bed in the morning when he was standing
before me with a freshly-opened cocoa-nut, out of which he poured and
offered me a cool morning draught of the milk. At dinner he never took
his eyes off me, and always knew beforehand what I should want.

"... On my return to Veligama I had to face one of the hardest duties
I had to fulfil during the whole of my stay in Ceylon: to tear myself
away from this lovely spot of earth, where I had spent six of the
happiest and most interesting weeks of my life.... Hardest of all was
the parting from my faithful Ganymede; the poor lad wept bitterly, and
implored me to take him with me to Europe. In vain had I assured him
many times before that it was impossible, and told him of our chill
climate and dull skies. He clung to my knees and declared that he
would follow me unhesitatingly wherever I might take him. I was at
last almost obliged to use force to free myself from his embrace...."

Europe would be more inhabitable, if servants of this kind were to be
found on the books of our registry offices.

* * *

MANU lived ages ago, and the ground-plan of his statutes remains
unchanged save in those parts where the native has been driven into
contact with Occidental institutions. The result: the average Hindu is
happier than the average European. His birth-rate--he is supposed to
grow impotent between twenty-five and thirty--is higher than ours; he
has individuality, he has repose. "The Indians," says Tavernier, "do
everything with great circumspection and patience, and when they see
any one who acts with precipitation, or becomes angry, they gaze at
him without saying anything, and smile as at a madman." All Asiatics,
according to another writer, "attribute to almost all Englishmen
atrocious manners, chiefly because Englishmen are so impatient of loss
of time."

How about Europe? Europe may be heading for Colney Hatch. This
impatience or strenu-ousness is the White Man's characteristic, and
his curse. It is converting him into a harassed automaton, the slave
of machines and unhealthy legislation.

I see no urgent cause for alarm in the fact that sanatoria spring up
like mushrooms over-night; that suicides due to nerve-strain are
increasingly frequent where they should not be increasingly frequent,
namely, among the well-to-do classes--that Manchester, for example,
spends 160,000 pouns a year on lunacy, and that out of 607 patients in one
local asylum 335 were there as a result of mental anxiety, worry, and
overwork (they ought to be ashamed of themselves); that the number of
our known mental deficients shows a steady augmentation of 2,000 a
year. This last is a contemptible little figure, not worth talking
about. At this rate we can go on for ever, and Colney Hatch remains a
dream.

The dream might be realized if we had another three or four wars on
the scale of the last (a not unthinkable eventuality), particularly if
we allowed ourselves no centuries in which to recuperate between two
of them. This, likely enough, is how we should act, since each
succeeding cataclysm will leave us more empty-headed than the last;
more ready, therefore, to begin again without weighing the
consequences. Such a course could not but end in bringing us to the
incandescent, moonstruck stage; and thereafter we may anticipate a
great calm--no more hysteria, no more nervous wrecks, no more
sanatoria. By the time we reach, if we ever do, the age of Mother
India, some pious Hindu, travelling westwards to observe the condition
of our crazy Kindergarten, will discover the last European among the
ruins of strange machinery, hugging his passport-talisman and
dribbling at the mouth, in a state of mellow dementia.

* * *

IN SPEAKING of our "mental survivals and anachronisms--obscure but
uncontrollable impulses which refuse to fit themselves into today's
categories," and of the "driving-force of our dim past," I did not
mean to imply that these prehistoric traits were necessarily of a
destructive kind. I meant that they were different from ours,
different; even as Cro-Magnon art reveals an outlook so different from
ours that it will not fit itself into any category established by our
schools. There it is, charming and different, a standard to itself.
The social standards of so gifted a race cannot be inferred from the
relics they have left behind them. They were certainly different from
ours, and, judging by the analogy of races still surviving on a
similar cultural level, we may conclude that an ethical code had been
hacked out which gave satisfaction and which also allowed of leisure,
for otherwise the art-yearning would have been suffocated in its
cradle. We think of them as savages, yet they cannot have known the
savagery on a grand scale and sanctioned by authority which was
practised up to a short time ago in Europe. We may suppose that they
had no acquaintance with a Grand Inquisitor nor with his puritan
imitators. This is lucky, else the Al-tamira paintings might have been
covered with a coat of whitewash.

Of these promptings of our past some are now discouraged by society,
others fostered. The ancient Europeans, for example, must have set
value on freedom, and possessed opportunities for self-expression such
as no longer fall to our lot. I take it that each liked to be master
in his own cave. This hankering after personal liberty, a prehistoric
trait, is becoming unintelligible to our generation. We think it odd
that men should dislike being controlled down to the most intimate
action of their lives, and why must they be masters in their own
house? In point of fact, they are nothing of the kind; the District
Visitor will see to that. Yet the trait persists--a survival and an
anachronism; and under its obscure impulse a man may find himself
committing some infringement of the code--they are easy to commit,
since new ones are invented every day--for which a police inspector
is delighted to run him in. The safeguarding of society is the
inspector's pretext; love of man-hunting his basic instinct.
Man-hunting, another relic of past ages, is encouraged by society and
organized into a trade. Man-hunting is the inspector's Neanderthal
trait. Had he not possessed it to the exclusion of others, he would
have chosen some different career. So those who fail to have inherited
one primeval characteristic may be found to have inherited another.
Opportunities for self-expression, for unauthorized pleasure however
innocuous, are growing rarer from day to day. Love of freedom has been
clipped and pruned in all its ramifications; what is allowed to-day
will probably be forbidden by to-morrow. The inroads of the
Legislature upon a peaceful and self-respecting population have been
revealed by writers such as E. S. P. Haynes: "We have lost the freedom
of the Catholic tradition and preserved only its taboos, which again
have been intolerably perverted by Calvin and his puritan successors."

The law is at work; like the keystone of the Indian arch, it "never
sleeps." It does not content itself with classifying and punishing
crime. It invents crime. Our Statute Book is growing into a sinister
contrivance for the protection and conservation of fools. A SINISTER
contrivance for the protection of fools....

Do you belong to the S.P.S.G.?

Here is a case for the S.P.S.G.: a man complaining to a London
magistrate because a woman persistently "waved kisses at him." Had the
Society existed in those days, he need not have gone to that expense
and trouble.

The association, founded in 1940, has done good work; it deserves to
be encouraged. The Society for the Protection of Sensitive Gentlemen,
by supplying each member with the escort of one of its discreet but
efficient policewomen, has at last made it possible for good-looking
fathers of families, when walking down Piccadilly, to discard the veil
in which they had been obliged to shroud their features for fear of
being "annoyed" with ambiguous proposals by some enterprising
fellow-creature.

The accosting nuisance must have assumed redoubtable dimensions to
lead to the formation of such a society. Or have we lost the faculty
of taking care of ourselves? In my day we found it quite easy to tell
an importuner, male or female, to go to Hell. And they went. Now we
are supposed to be "persons aggrieved," and the importuners are hauled
before a magistrate and harassed by fines and imprisonments to the
number of several thousands a year.

The law invents a crime, and then spends its morning collecting fines
to swell the revenue. Even so the Church used to invent sins, in
order to fill its coffers.

The _Saturday Review_ observes that "much of the coldness between
police and people that has been so noticeable of late is due not to
the methods of investigating crime but to the multiplication of the
occasions of collision between the police and decent, honest
citizens." Says the Chairman of the Glamorganshire Quarter Sessions:
"Legislation, by-laws and regulations have enormously increased the
work of the police, and impaired their popularity." It is enough to
make any one unpopular, being obliged by law to run in every second
person you see in the street. No fun, being a policeman. No fun,
either, being a police magistrate--intelligent gentlemen and yet
often, how often, hopelessly puzzled how to reconcile two
irrecon-cilables; how to steer a middle course, that is, between
reason and the law of the land. They dole out their fines with
Olympian impartiality to the poor devils of importuners, who must
content themselves with the reflection that they are getting what is
known as justice. No doubt they are getting justice.

Who wants it?

Justice is too good for some people, and not good enough for the rest.

* * *

ALL the happenings, of which the importuning-nuisance is only one, and
all the fly-blown legislation which has grown up around them, would be
laughed out of existence among a race which still possessed a shred of
manliness or of humour. An epidemic of smallpox in Gloucester
(was it Gloucester?) is supposed to be a serious matter, to judge by
the newspapers. Another epidemic, the de-masculinization of the whole
of England, strikes me as a more serious one, although the papers have
nothing to say about it. Funk lies at the bottom of this state of
things--girlish funk, that would have tickled our ancestors to death.
It was unknown in antiquity; it is unknown in the East. What a pity
Fielding and Smollett are no longer alive! They would have relished
it. And Queen Elizabeth--how she would have laughed at this spoon-fed
generation calling themselves Englishmen!...

* * *

IT WAS Nietzsche's joy to unmask the soul of the Christian. As Mr.
Edward Garnett says:

"His special instinct for tearing off the idealistic veils which hide
the religious nature in its use of human suffering as a means of
attaining worldly power, make Nietzsche the great specialist on the
arts of priestcraft.... He lives in literature as the most powerful
antagonist of the Christian soul."

I wish another Nietzsche could be found to unmask the soul of the
prude, of those who consider themselves "persons aggrieved" when a
stranger of the other sex wishes them good evening in the streets, of
those who are responsible for the fussy legislation on matters
pertaining to the sexes under which we are all suffering.

Note the ignorance of the prude: the accoster must be "of the other
sex." Little he knows of what goes on in the streets! Is there no
accosting between man and man, or between woman and woman? And why
should I be upset and entitled to take action when a woman accosts me,
and not when a man does? In leaving open this chink, I fear the prude
is encouraging us to indulge in what he calls unnatural vice. I also
fear he has never seen a lady. No lady is ever "aggrieved" when a man
addresses her with some shy and stupid remark about the weather; she
is either amused or flattered or bored; and she can put him straight,
if she wishes, without uttering a word. The technical term "person
aggrieved" is the prude's device for begging the question.

Catholic authorities like S. Thomas and S. Alfonso di Liguori have
dealt as severely with sexual irregularities as any puritan. Their
books, however, are in Latin and addressed to priests for use in the
confessional; their activities did not take the form of law-making and
public prosecutions. Catholic countries contain no prudes, and their
inhabitants know nothing of our obsession with this kind of morality,
which they regard as an unhealthy fad. It is a Lutheran trait, the
result of repressed or misdirected sexual impulses. We have too much
sex on the brain, and too little of it elsewhere. I cannot visualize
the soul of a prude; it must be something in the nature of a cesspool.
These are they who "made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of
Heaven's sake." And we are at the mercy of such incomplete creatures.

Orientals would have difficulty in understanding their point of view.

It would be interesting, during some legal proceeding based on these
new enactments, if the clean-minded accuser could be forced by
hypnotism or otherwise to give the Court a glimpse into the workings
of his imagination, to reveal his inhibitions, and set forth something
of his own habits of life.

That case would have to be heard in camera.

* * *

HERE is a deputation of the Hampstead branch of the Women's Freedom
League informing the Assistant Commissioner of Police that at least
fifty policewomen are required to patrol Hampstead Heath, on
account of the dangers to which children and young people are exposed
when walking alone. Fifty is a goodly number of guardians for so
relatively small an area. No doubt children should be protected; but
so should the ratepayer. In the interests of public economy the number
of policewomen should be cut down as low as possible. The thing can be
done, if we are prepared to sacrifice a little natural beauty. Destroy
those shrubs and alluring bosky thickets--the gorse may be left
undisturbed, as its spiky needles are not propitious to sporting with
Amaryllis in the shade--and twenty-five policewomen, stationed at
elevated points and armed with field-glasses, might be found
sufficient, especially if they could be taught some simple code
whereby they could signal to each other the Presence of Vice.

One is inclined to ask why those fifty women were not patrolling the
Heath formerly. May I suggest an answer? Because their services were
not required. In other words, I am prepared to believe that assaults
on young people are more common than they used to be. It is the
inevitable result of our recent puritanical legislation.

In my day these menacing restrictions did not exist. Piccadilly and
the Strand were happy hunting-grounds; dozens of rooms and hotels
stood at your disposal; blackmail of men by men or by women, as
compared with to-day, was in its infancy j so was blackmail of women
by the police: there was no danger for either sex of being hauled up
for solicitation "so as to constitute a nuisance"; for keeping
apartments for improper purposes; for seducing what might turn out to
be a technical minor; for "insulting behaviour" and those other spooks
which the prude's imagination has conjured up. We were terrified at
the consequences of our innocent diversions not from the legal, but
from the medical point of view. Here is a national danger whose
existence the prude refuses to recognize, with results which are more
disastrous to England than all the rapes that have occurred since
Magna Charta.

The Golden Age of which I spoke is now past, and if Hampstead Heath is
worse than it was, the fault lies with those who try to drive out
nature with a fork. In my time there were no "Perils of the Heath."
Young people might play about there all day long, provided old ones
might play about there at night without having a lantern flashed in
their faces by some prying policeman.

* * *

REPRESSION of sexual impulses takes queer forms (the prude's mentality
is one of them), and a timid but sound man, knowing the risk he runs
in accosting even a prostitute, if she happens to be temporarily
unwell and therefore disposed to take on the air of an "aggrieved
person" such a man, I say, may be tempted to indulge in something
which seems to preclude that risk, and often, for all I know, actually
does preclude it.

By the prude's love of interfering with harmless pleasure, nature was
driven from the Strand into that insanitary Hyde Park, of which the
editor of an English weekly writes that its "evil reputation is solely
due to the police administration which had obtained there of late
years, and in particular to the employment of plain-clothes 'spies' in
the evening"--and of which the Chief of Police himself said that he
would be shy of going alone there after dark, and would not venture to
sit down. From Hyde Park nature is apparently being driven to
Hampstead Heath, and soon Wimbledon Common and Richmond Park will
require their two or three regiments of policewomen.

Viewed in the light of an open-air movement, and a step in the
direction of a healthy country life, there is something to be said for
the prude's exertions.

Our grandchildren, poor dears, will have to wander still further
afield in order to avoid those lanterns--to Savernake Forest, the
slopes of Snowdon or the purple Grampians. It is to be hoped, for the
honour of Scotland, that Arthur's Seat may remain till the Day of
Judgment in the condition in which Providence obviously meant it to
remain--that is to say, unpatrolled; else Edinburgh will become what
London is rapidly becoming: uninhabitable for such men of normal
habits as cannot afford to take a room at the Ritz.

Fifty policewomen patrolling Hampstead Heath.... Asiatics are apt to
be grave folk. If you want to make them laugh, tell them that.

P.S. It is the same in America. The author of _Father India_, quoting
from the American Judge Lindsey, tells us that the puritanical
abolition of red-light districts in New York has been responsible for
undermining the morals of "good girls." With the breaking-up of those
centres of prostitution, young men took to schoolgirls, "a thing they
had seldom done in the past," and with deplorable results. "There are at
least 50,000 girls in New York living with men who are not their
husbands"--thanks to the prude's interference.

A gem of Western puritanism may be found in the pages of Mr. Mencken's
_Americana_:

Amelia Moser, eighteen, was arrested yesterday by Lieutenants Timothy
Hickey and Milton Macmullen of the Detective Bureau, charged with
_being in danger of falling into vice_.

"A new crime," says Mr. Mencken...,

* * *

WHOEVER wishes to see the prude at work in the privacy of his closet
should purchase for the sum of one shilling the February 1929 number
of _Close Up_ (24 Devonshire St., W.C. 1). It deals largely with the
censorship of the cinema in Europe, and reproduces an astonishing
document: a list of what is prohibited to be shown on the screen in
England.

There is a film censorship in nearly all European countries, but no
institution like ours, whose decisions entail the forbidding of almost
everything which might attract people who are interested in the
development of this art. By these rules a number of important films
which are shown elsewhere are absolutely banned in England; among
them, I am told, are the following: Potemkin, Joyless Street, Dawn,
Ten Days, Tragedy of the Street, Nature and Love (a castrated version
was shown in England under the title Cosmos), The Passion of Jean
d'Arc, Nju, Mechanics of the Brain, Dr. Knock, For the Term of His
Natural Life, The Life of Martin Luther, and the majority of Russian
films, which, from a technical point of view, are as important as
any--are, in fact, a new form of art.

A pleasant place, England, where you have to go abroad in order to see
a good film. France, I believe, is not much better, so far as
political films are concerned.

Speaking of these fantastic restrictions, the Editor says: "The list,
which I am going to quote later, not without blushes, is so indecent
that if it came from any but a recognized public society for
protecting people's morals, this issue of _Close Up_ would be burnt by
the common hangman, without a doubt."

While resisting the temptation to quote from it, I warmly recommend
readers to study the list as bearing on the question of our national
de-masculinization. There is also a succulent little article by Mr.
Robert Herring entitled _Pruri-tannia rules the Slaves_, well worth
reading. It has already been proved, over and over again, that our
standard as to what constitutes decency in literature and art is
different from that of every other country.

For the rest, this film-nonsense, like the unnecessary banning of a
number of books--one of my own, printed for the American public
exactly as I wrote it, had to be "toned down" for British
consumption--this film nonsense is not a disease; it is only a
symptom. I take it the prude must have had great fun, indulging his
imagination with forbidden cinema incidents like "women promiscuously
taking up men," or "improper exhibition of feminine underclothing," or
"scenes indicating that a criminal assault on a woman has just been
perpetrated" (note that _just_).

A psychologist would probably suggest that, in the arrangement of
spicy commandments like these, the prude finds his substitute for that
gratification of the senses which ordinary mortals seek on Hampstead
Heath.

* * *

OUR Statute Book is growing into a sinister contrivance for the
conservation of fools. It is saturated with the delusion that men must
be protected not only against each other, but against themselves.

One may leave to Major Leonard Darwin the task of showing what it
entails to provide for those legions of paupers, insane or diseased
persons, who, insured or subsidized by the State, are lowering our
standard of fitness as irrevocably as night follows day. They are
being "protected against themselves" and invited to breed like rabbits
at the expense of the sound and the sane. It is an established fact
that paupers breed more rapidly than the classes above them. In
England we build 165,000 new houses every year, and yet, in London
alone, there are said to be 130,000 persons living in insanitary dens.
An ex-Mayor of Manchester has lately written a book on _How to Abolish
the Slums_. I have not read it, but can suggest a solution of the
problem that would cost not a halfpenny: stop this breeding. And the
point to notice is this, that the breeding would stop automatically
were it not officially encouraged. Now, with the pauper vote, these
dregs will have become the master of the ratepayer and a factor which
can decide elections and control our fates. Some judicious remarks on
this head will be found in Mr. C. W. Armstrong's _Survival of the
Unfittest_.

Here are a few facts culled from the press:

In June 1928 there were 883,000 persons living on poor relief as
opposed to 372,600 in June 1914.

One out of seven people in Bermondsey is in receipt of relief.

The Chairman of the Greenwich Board of Guardians asked: "Why should
these people bring children into the world for the Guardians to
maintain?" He was referring to a family of father, mother, and
fourteen children, all but one of whom had been continually in receipt
of outdoor relief.

According to the Board of Control the number of officially known
defectives has increased during the last six years from 25,470 to
61,522.

They cost us 8,000,000 pounds a year. Although new institutions for
them are being built as fast as possible, there are still 40,000 for
whom there is no room.

The estimated total expenditure on poor relief in England and Wales in
1927-28 is 39,250,000 pounds.

Major Darwin tells us that "philanthropists ought to learn that by
their efforts they may be continually helping to defeat the very aims
which they have in view." Private philanthropy directed towards such
ends is bad enough. Public philanthropy, which forces us to contribute
to the upkeep of this scum, demonstrates how the intelligent and
prudent members of the community are penalized for their superiority
by an enactment of yesterday's date.

They manage these things better, out East.

* * *

TAKE, for instance, the case of Indian beggars. That prehistoric
Hindu religion--it counte-(l9e) nances beggary, with the result that
nearly six million loafers (exclusive of saints, fakirs and other
ascetics) are at this moment being kept alive by public charity. These
picturesque folk may well envy their _confreres_ in London, where the
income of private charities alone amounts to five million pounds a
year.

"The Brahmanic code commends renunciation of active life and the
taking up of a life of contemplation and beggary as the proper
terminal half of man's earthly existence" (_Mother India_, p. 360).

So does the Christian code, except that it does not commend such a
course; it ordains it, and not only for the "terminal half" of life.
Indian beggars are carrying out our New Testamentary injunctions; they
are the stuff of which Saint Francis of Assisi was made; they are the
ideal which Jesus held up to posterity. If we have no beggars of this
species among us--our 12,000 vagrants on the roads are hardly worth
mentioning, though their numbers show a steady and hopeful
increase--it demonstrates, once again, that we have abandoned the
precepts of our religious teachers, and cut the cables that bound us
to them.

* * *

IT SHOULD not be forgotten that Indian mendicants have a status
different from ours, and profess a different point of view. They are
not shy or shifty; they never skulk in corners nor approach you in a
shamefaced fashion with some piteous story. Poverty is no disgrace in
the East. These men belong to a recognized confraternity which
confers _esprit de corps_, they take pride in their calling as does
any other professional. A begging Brahmin is no less dignified than a
European reigning sovereign; far from appealing to your compassion, he
suggests that you are lucky in having this chance to show whether you
are religiously-minded or not. And all such people are quite
unofficial; nobody need give them ,( 198) alms; let them starve! Our
beggars have an authorized standing and must be fed out of your and my
pockets. Whoever refuses to contribute to their upkeep is sent to
prison. Hundreds of millions are spent on doles and relief.

In 1900 there were 933,450 paupers who cost us L13,802,378. That is
bad enough; yet note the ominous increase. Two years later their
numbers had swelled to 1,702,097, costing us 45,247,010 pounds. This
does not include the swarm of mental deficients and wrecks of all
kinds who are under Governmental care.

Which is absurder: beggar-nuisance or dole-nuisance?

Which is costlier?

Which is the graver menace to posterity?

* * *

TO-DAY'S paper describes the last stage in a trial for blackmail, and
I note that this case could not have arisen save for the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, under one of whose provisions it comes. This Act
seems to be responsible for a considerable increase in blackmail,
which, as Mr. Justice M'Cardle said not long ago, "has sapped and
wrecked many a home, and driven many a man and woman to suicide." By
repressing one variety of crime, it encourages another. The same
might be said about our laws on gambling, street-betting, licensing
and so forth. They create crime. They lead to blackmail of another
kind--police-blackmail, and consequent police-corruption. They have
produced the _agent-provocateur_, so un-English a phenomenon, and yet
so common in England....

The ancients, albeit their natural promptings were nowise different
from ours, knew as little about blackmail in sexual matters as do the
Orientals of to-day. There is no legal term for it in Greek or Roman
jurisprudence, despite the Roman mania for manufacturing laws. Yet
cases must have occurred, there and elsewhere. I do riot know when the
word itself cropped up. The crime came under the heading of
"conspiracy," and London blackmailers used to be known as trappers
(_Tricks of the Town Laid Open_, 1747, where, in Letter xiv, the "Art
of Trapping" is described, though the word blackmail never occurs).

Even now, owing to different legislation, the character of blackmail
is milder in Latin countries than with us. Among Anglo-Saxon and
Teutonic races are to be found its most terrifying features, which
lose half their virulence in those instances where the operator has at
his disposal not the leverage of law, as with us, but only that of
public opinion.

Here is a pest from which Orientals are exempt, and to which the most
upright Englishman is exposed, with consequences that are often
disastrous for him, and sometimes tragic. Hookworm may be a nuisance,
but it does not account for "broken careers, shipwrecked lives,
disappearances, interrupted marriages, inexplicable
money-embarrassments, murders, and suicides by hundreds." These words
are quoted from a writer who knows as much about the theory and
practice of blackmail on both sides of the Atlantic as is good for any
one to know, and who, speaking of our own legislation on this subject,
says that "the law, on the present ignorant, unscientific,
Jewish-Christian basis, is too often a lamentable injury and menace to
the best elements of society."

The above-named Act also contains certain regulations on the subject
of the so-called third sex which seem to have been specially designed
to suit the convenience of the blackmailer. And, apart from that, they
are a mixture of childishness and ferocity.

They manage these things better, out East.

P.S. Thinking that I might have overshot the mark in saying that there
was no term for blackmail in Greek or Roman jurisprudence, I applied
to a learned friend, who writes:

"My information is, like yours, that there is no specific term for it
in Ancient Law. Intimidation appears to have been regarded rather
lightly, to judge from e.g. Justinian, Inst. iv. 6. 27: 'The action on
intimidation also differs from the others... in that it contains in
its very nature an implied condition that the defendant is entitled to
acquittal if, on being so ordered by the judge, he restores to the
plaintiff the property of which the latter has been deprived.' The
technical term was _actio de eo quod metus causa fac-tum sit_. Clearly
there is here no conception of the grave offence of blackmail; the
action seems framed for the case of testamentary dispositions made
under intimidation. I should have thought, however, that a person like
de Zulueta could have settled the question off-hand."

* * *

THIS Sacco-Vanzetti business was an exhibition of long-protracted
savagery such as could never have been witnessed in the East, apart
from the fact that the two men, who suffered the death penalty after
suffering for seven years more than the agony of death, were possibly
innocent. Judged by this episode, Occidental methods of slaying are
far more atrocious than those of Jenghis Khan and King Thebaw--or
rather his wife--of happy memory.

And the offensive publicity.... The case, in fact, was tried in the
press before it was decided by the courts.

In England, too, there is something ghoulish in the newspaper comments
on such occasions, and certainly our procedure in the matter of the
death-sentence and all that follows after has a flavour of solemn
coarseness for which there is not the least justification, and which
gives a fine chance to enterprising reporters. It seems to me that
even a criminal, and especially a condemned one, should be treated
with urbanity; the State owes this duty both to him and to itself. Is
he?

One would like to think that Mr. J. M. Robertson was wrong in saying
that Christian cruelty has been as much viler than pagan, culture for
culture, as the modern Christian environment is uglier than the
Athenian. He was referring to the circumstances which attended the
execution of Socrates, also a condemned felon--an event concerning
which Professor Mahaffy remarks that "there is I think in all Greek
literature no scene which ought to make us more ashamed of our boasted
Christian culture"; and then, after describing the death, proceeds to
compare the humane and kindly treatment which was accorded to this
criminal in his last moments with the "gauntness and horror of our
modern executions, as detailed to us with morbid satisfaction by the
daily newspapers."

These are at bottom not questions of sentimentality. They are
questions of intelligence. Shall I put my opinion bluntly? We have
lost the intelligence which is the basis of gentlemanly feeling. A two
thousand years' course of "believing the impossible" cannot but debase
the general standard of intelligence. And race-sentiments adapt
themselves to these changed conditions, with the result that our
emotional fibres are hardened--vulgarized; a process which, from the
legal point of view, was illustrated during the God-fearing nineteenth
century, when some of the most fiendish refinements of cruelty were
inscribed in our Statute Book (see George Ives' _History of Penal
Methods_, 1914).

Among the factors which contribute to this element of ungraciousness
must be included a section of the press. It pulls downwards. Appealing
to the prejudices and impulses of the commoner sort, because this
ensures the largest circulation, it pollutes still further that
mentality of theirs, which is already nothing to boast of.

* * *

HERE comes, most opportunely and to my great satisfaction, Mr. Charles
Duff's _Handbook on Hanging_. One can see at a glance that it has a
noble pedigree, for under that mask of effortless impromptu may be
discerned the familiar features of the _Short Way with Dissenters_. I
have not the pleasure of the author's acquaintance, but I hope he will
not deprive me of the joy of reading his projected _Anthology of
Hanging_, for which a place is already reserved in my library.

The book describes itself as "all very proper to be read and kept in
every family." I agree, and had I the power I should see to it that a
copy was deposited on the breakfast-table of every citizen in England.
It is full of delectable information, such as that it took one
hour and eleven minutes to hang a man in Canada in 1919; and that (2)
dislocation of the neck is the ideal aimed at, but--says a surgeon
witness of these entertainments--out of all his postmortem findings,
this has proved rather an exception, while in the majority of
instances the cause of death was strangulation and asphyxia; and that
(3) English prison governors are forbidden to time executions with a
stop-watch, and, should an inquisitive coroner or jury afterwards
press for details, are bound by explicit Home Office instructions to
hedge on the subject; and that (4) the late Chief Baron Kelly gave
evidence before a Royal Commission that, in the course of some forty
years, there were twenty-two persons sentenced to death who were
afterwards proved to have been innocent of the crime for which they
were sentenced; and that (5) among other cases of bungled hangings was
that of Patrick Harnet, whose head was all but torn from the body,
remaining attached thereto only by a small piece of skin at the back
of the neck.

The book contains many of these appetizing details, but what bears on
my present subject are the statistics printed on page 80, showing the
relative amount of publicity given in newspapers to a recent murder
trial and to the death of a great man, Thomas Hardy. This page
deserves a careful perusal. It names the newspapers concerned, and
gives in inches the space devoted to a description of the two
respective events. A well-known English daily, for example,
consecrated 624 inches to the first and 96 to the second; while a
Sunday paper gave 312 to the former and 30 to the latter.

This is "pulling downwards."

It is outside the scope of Mr. Duff's booklet to allude to the rewards
offered by the press for the detection of criminals, but not outside
the scope of those who contrast Eastern barbarism with its counterpart
in the West. Man-hunting by newspaper is the lowest level to which
humanity has yet sunk.

* * *

THE newspaper and the crank, as custodians of public right and wrong,
have begun to step into the shoes of the priest, with a little
unnecessary noise. And the press in its moral mood is even more
edifying than the crank. Not long ago a well-known personality was
involved in a mild scandal. Why not let him take the consequences,
without those inane comments on the part of the press which were
supposed to echo its readers' sentiments? Moral indignation is the
property of the crowd. No individual cares tuppence what his neighbour
does, provided he be not hurt thereby. Mass-conscience is a
newspaper-manufactured article--all make-believe and playing to the
gallery.

We know who patronizes the gallery.

This arbitrary mass-conscience, unknown in Asia, is a modern product.
Certain states of mind peculiar to groups have a _raison d'etre_--the
civic conscience, the class and religious conscience, and so forth.
Mass-conscience differs from these in that it (i) conforms to no
standard, and (2) admits of no tribunal of appeal. All it does is to
generate a noxious gas called public opinion.

Public opinion is a public nuisance. A public-opinion-lunatic is one
who has no opinion of his own.

The press to-day tells us what to think and what to do; it selects our
politicians and concocts our morals. To-morrow it will come out with a
different menu, whereas that old priest was at least consistent in his
bias. Irresponsible, yes; but I should not call it chaotic, since
chaos presupposes the existence of particles, however disordered.
Mass-conscience is amorphous, gelatinous.

There are many forms of bad government. Our present system of
government via the Civil Service is not all that could be desired. We
are heading for a worse form: government by newspaper.

* * *

A PROPOS of newspapers, we have a complaint in _Mother India_ (p. 35)
about the indecent advertisements which appear in some Indian-owned
ones. We need not travel East in order to find such things. With the
laudable object of preventing my French from growing rusty, an
American lady friend occasionally sends me a batch of fashionable
Parisian journals, such as _Le Sourire, Gens Qui Rient, Paris-Flirt,
L'Humeur, Frou-Frou_, and other high-class literature.

The jokes are apt to be monotonous, and even the advertisements, which
used to be both amusing and instructive, have lost much of their
raciness lately (The "Decay of Paris" would require a volume to
itself). Of their kind, however, they are better than anything that
can be found in England, and now and then one comes across a jewel. I
wish I had the courage to print a few of them here.

* * *

Cows... how did I come to overlook them? For among the most
suggestive chapters in _Mother India_ are those which deal with
cattle. We know that this beast is sacred to the Hindus; I doubt
whether we all know to what a crazy state of affairs this sanctity has
led. I shall not summarize the argument beyond quoting from Mr. Gandhi
(p. 236), who says that "our cattle-worship has resolved itself into
an ignorant fanaticism. The fact that we have more cattle than we can
support is a matter for urgent treatment." This overstocking of the
land by half-starved cattle in the name of religion throws a sidelight
on what one might call the inanity of Hinduism.

Why keep these cows?

How about Europe? Have we any corresponding inanity?

Having been something of a dog-fancier long ago--I know even now the
points of a Wil-loughby pug (an extinct breed, very likely) as well as
most people--I find it painful to invent anything to the discredit of
a certain old friend of man, especially as it is sure to get me into
trouble with certain old friends of my own.... We learn that there are
three million dogs in England alone (? or Great Britain), all but a
small fraction being useless for any purpose whatever. Why keep these
dogs?

The Indian cattle can draw carts; they are eatable--so far as the hump
is concerned; they devour what is not fit for human consumption, to
wit, grass (and what grass!), as well as old bones, newspapers, and
every other kind of offal; they are therefore of public utility as
scavengers. Our 3,000,000 dogs consume nutritious material that would
maintain many hundred poor families; they do not draw carts; and their
flesh is considered to be uneatable. Moreover, if you squeeze an
Indian cow long and hard enough you will produce a few drops of milk,
which is said to be good for children and invalids. Our dogs produce
nothing but fleas and bad smells and a choice assortment of microbes
in mouth and elsewhere, some of which can, and do, bring death to
human beings.

Which is absurder: cow-cult or dog-cult?

* * *

THE dung of Indian cattle constitutes an important local fuel; the
acrid odour of burning _uplas_, hanging about the still atmosphere, is
the _Leitmotif_ of an Indian sunrise; it pervades the vast country
from one end to the other. The excrements of our dogs serve no end
save to encumber the pavements to the disgust of foot-passengers.
Many foreigners have remarked the peculiar downcast look in the eyes
of Londoners walking about their streets; they attribute it to a kind
of insular bashfulness or modesty. "These English must be a shy race,"
they say. That earthward glance has a more practical origin.
Londoners are concerned for their boots. It has been suggested that
dogs be taught to use the roadways for their purposes. In vain.
_Gentlemen prefer blondes_. Dogs prefer pavements.

_P.S._ Here are by-laws issued by the Royal Borough of Kensington and
by that of Hampstead, which have made the fouling of footways by dogs
an offence liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings. Five
offenders, all ladies, have been convicted and fined by the former;
three by the latter. That makes eight; a humble beginning. When
eighty thousand have been fined, that downcast look of the Cockney
will begin to disappear.

* * *

THIS cattle-crowding cannot have existed at all times and places.
Bernier tells us that "it was on account of the scarcity of cattle
that _Fehan-Guire_, at the request of the _Brahmens_, issued an edict
to forbid the killing of beasts of pasture for a certain number of
years; and not long since they presented a similar petition to
_Aureng-Zebe_, offering him a considerable sum of money to ensure his
compliance. They urged that the neglected and ruinous condition of
many tracts of country during the last fifty or sixty years was
attributable to the paucity and clearness of oxen."

Here, then, we have a case of under-crowding.

The land would support many more cattle if the fodder were of richer
quality. And the fodder would be of richer quality if the dung were
not taken up and used as fuel. This robs the soil of manure, as has
been pointed out by several Anglo-Indian writers.

The "Sin of the Salvation Army" (_Mother India_, pp. 202-212) consists
in taking over grazing-grounds which the English Government
presented to that body. Anybody else would have taken them too. "...
the cow's hunger [is] one of the evil effects of British rule. And
British rule is indeed largely responsible for the present disastrous
condition [of cattle]." There is truth in that. It must not be
forgotten, however, that British restrictions on grazing-grounds have
been made in the interest of forest lands, on which the rainfall and
climate, and consequently the prosperity, of India depends. Those in
charge of cattle complain of such things, and not only in India,
because they fail to see the ulterior benefits which the Government
has in view (J. Coatman, _India in 1927-28_, p. 119).

* * *

YOUR pious Hindu is an enigma to some people. The same man who covers
his lamp with wire netting in order that mosquitoes and suchlike small
deer may not singe their wings, and who refuses to use worm-eaten wood
for burning his dead lest it should still harbour living things--this
sensitive creature occasionally goes out in his bullock-cart. The
beast is slow (they are not all of the trotting variety) and to
quicken its pace he twists its tail till the caudal vertebrae are
dislocated. Disgusting! He has another exquisite dodge: he keeps open
a festering sore in its hind-(2l8) quarters, just one, and always the
same from the cradle to the grave, and into this he thoughtfully prods
the point of his stick from time to time. It is enough to make
anybody trot faster.

Such practices can be matched in the south of Europe, and in the
centre as well. Englishmen think nothing of rabbiting with ferrets j
and rabbit-snaring is still more atrocious. An endless enquiry....

Suffering dogs which in Europe would be put out of their pain are in
India allowed, or rather obliged, to linger on. It is not right to
take their lives. Such is the Hindu code; it is observed to the letter
(also by the sect of the Holy Rollers in America), and Mr. Gandhi has
lately got into hot water with his people and "sent a thrill of horror
through the Hindu world" for advocating the killing of animals under
certain conditions (_Times of India_, 7, 13, 20th October 1928). We
should not forget that this religion, in spite of such anomalies, has
conferred incalculable benefits on the animal creation, benefits
unknown in the Western world at any time of our existence there as
human beings. You may help a beast to live; you may not help it to
die. Merciful feeling was the origin of that command. The Turks are
likewise decent-minded in such matters. I have seen a Turk at Broussa
spreading out a rug in the dusty road for a pariah-bitch that was
about to pup. Catch any European doing that....

And observe our Western inconsistency. We put dying dogs and horses
out of their pain; when it is proposed, as it frequently has been, to
apply the same principle to men under the same conditions, the project
is vetoed by faddists, even if the sufferer himself be in its favour.
Euthanasia is good enough for a poodle; not for us. Do dogs suffer
more acutely than men?

This taboo, like that on suicide, has its roots in the pestilential
theory that life is given us on trust. Would it be uncharitable to
hope that reactionaries who are responsible for causing so much
unnecessary pain to their fellow-creatures may have a thoroughly good
dose of it themselves, when their own time for departure draws nigh?

* * *

THOUGH one or two passages might be cited, there are in the Bible
relatively few injunctions about kindness to animals. The Jews,
including Christ, were too narrow-minded to bother their heads about
the bodily welfare of beasts of the earth. Their mania for the
supernatural made them unduly concerned with the spiritual welfare of
their own species, and if we have now attained to a certain standard
of decent behaviour towards living creatures other than mankind, it is
because we have evolved this standard out of our own hearts, not out
of theirs. We have evolved it in defiance of our religious teachers.
So, when it was proposed to found in Italy a society for the
prevention of cruelty to animals, the Pope's official reply to Lord
Odo Russell was that "such an association could not be sanctioned by
the Holy See, being founded on a theological error, to wit, that
Christians owed any duties to animals."

Christians owe no duties to animals. This is authoritative and plain
speaking, and in glaring contrast to the Hindu code.

* * *

OUR belief in the universality of British kindness towards a favourite
animal, the horse, receives something of a shock when we learn that
under the single heading of "working horses in an unfit state" the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has obtained, during
the last ten years, no fewer than 16,612 convictions. Pretty constant
cruelty, too; since, in spite of all the Society's efforts, the
difference between 1918 and 1928 is only 226 cases.

In regard to the traffic in the export of horses for butchery abroad,
this is what was going on last year:

"It is a pitiful sight to see our old horses packed into slow-going
foreign trains, waiting, hungry and thirsty, for death in a foreign
abattoir, killed, often cruelly, by foreign butchers.

"Even when they are humanely killed at last, they have to endure long
wretchedness before death. And once they are sold for butchery their
suffering is not considered. They are only regarded as so much meat.

"At Vaugirard, the Paris abattoir, the terrified horses are driven
with whips into slaughter-sheds, where they stand on floors slippery
with blood, and knock against freshly-flayed hanging carcasses. They
are hobbled so that they may fall at the first blow, knocked on the
head with a hammer, and the knife is often plunged into their breast
while they are still struggling.

"It is an extraordinary thing that nearly every man and woman you meet
has a sincere regard for horses, and considers this traffic an
abomination. Yet it goes on."

* * *

HOSPITALS for oxen and other sick animals have existed in India time
out of mind, and the author of _Mother India_ points out some sad
abuses in them--how the beasts are allowed to starve to death there,
and so forth. We do not send ailing animals to a hospital; we send
them to the knacker, and the evils which she castigates are to be
found in certain European hospitals for human beings. This is what I
wrote some years ago:

"The scandals that occasionally arise in connexion with that saintly
institution, the Foundling Hospital at Naples, are enough to make
humanity shudder. Of 856 children under its motherly care during 1895,
853 died in the course of that one year--only three survived; a
wholesale massacre. These 853 children were carried forward in the
books as still living, and the institution, which has a yearly revenue
of over 600,000 francs (about 24,000 pounds at the then rate) was debited
with their maintenance, while 42 doctors (instead of the prescribed
number of 19) continued to draw salaries for their services to these
innocents, that had meanwhile been starved and tortured to death. The
official report on these horrors ends with the words: 'There is no
reason to think that these facts are peculiar to the year 1895.'" (See
_Corriere di Napoli_, 23rd May 1897.)

If these facts do not fall under the rubric of cruelty to animals,
they may be studied in connexion with what has been written about
infanticide in India.

_P.S_. I am not suggesting that animals are never treated in English
hospitals. Here are two cases that prove the contrary:
"Vicountess-------'s pet monkey has gone into a nursing home for a
rest cure, at a fee of fifteen guineas a week."

Clever animals go to the hospital of their own accord:

"Suffering from conjunctivitis, a cat walked into the casualty
department of the Sheffield Royal Hospital, and was attended by the
House Surgeon."

* * *

ANIMAL cult in England, though more localized, is carried to absurder
lengths. Among the advertisements in a vegetarian journal is one of a
firm manufacturing non-animal shoes with balata soles, non-animal
suit-cases "strongly resembling dark-brown leather," non-animal
cricket-balls and straps--everything non-animal, in fact. I should
like to hear this dealer's customers playing on a non-animal violin.

Perhaps they are not musical.

Here we have also a recommendation to profit by a non-animal jeweller
who deals in _vegetarian cutlery_, and sells neither leather, bone,
nor ivory goods.

Hindus were never such idiots. Arrian (chapter xvi.) tells us that
"the Indians wear also earrings of ivory."

* * *

IN SPEAKING of Indian cow-products I forgot to mention the local
butter. This chalky-white substance--it is not artificially
coloured--will strike you at first as a fearsome product; it is, at
all events, authentic. And when clarified into ghee it forms a
national and highly nutritious condiment. The ghee produced out there
suffices not only for the natives; returns show that in 1891, for
example, two hundred thousand rupees' worth was exported from India to
foreign countries. Indian cows are therefore not useless; they can
produce butter. Can ours?

It is an instructive commentary on our European state of mind and on
the activities of the Society of Nations and other public bodies that
(in spite of half a million laws and by-laws safeguarding our welfare)
the employment of butter, whose nutritive value is of the highest,
should have given place to that of margarine, which has no such value,
and which any one can manufacture out of whale-blubber or any other
grease that comes to hand.

The motion that this abominable mess should be distinguished by a
special tint--last hope of those who would like to be able to give
their families something wholesome and fit to eat--was defeated in
Parliament, and this is what the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ now says:
"As regards the fats used in its manufacture there does not exist any
legal restriction, and as long as the fat is in a state fit for human
consumption the manufacturer can make whatever mixture he pleases,"
and (article "Adulteration") it goes on to point out how the adulterer
can defeat all efforts at detection, as he knows what tests are going
to be applied, and can always add some substance to confuse the
reaction.

A savoury state of affairs....

The smell alone of a margarine factory should suffice to deter anybody
from touching such filth with the point of his stick. Yet here we are,
devouring by the ton a noisome concoction which any low-class Oriental
would thank you for not setting on his table.

* * *

MR. WILLIAMS-ELLIS is not altogether _vox da-mantis in deserto_. There
are three or four others who see eye to eye with him, and have written
books to say so. Yet he has done well to publish _England and the
Octopus_, which shows up the needless vulgarization of English scenery
that is now taking place. It is also good to listen to an Archbishop
now and then, when it is not a question of Prayer Book revision. His
Grace of Canterbury asked not long ago: "Can a civic sense of beauty
survive the progress of a civilization which is making a desert of the
past and a dust-heap of the future?" He may have been thinking of the
road from London to Canterbury, and remembering what it looked like
thirty years ago.

Or any other road....

It is difficult to picture to oneself the restful dignity of our towns
and villages before they were defaced by that flaring eruption of
advertisements. Now, having ruined our entire landscape with these
abominations, we are making a terrible fuss over tram tickets lying
about. "One of the most serious eyesores is caused by the huge number
of tramway and omnibus tickets thrown down by the public on alighting.
The problem of how to remedy this evil has occupied the attention of
the traffic authorities for many years.... Various suggestions have
been put forward to cure the nuisance."...

The photographs at the end of _England and the Octopus_ are social
documents; they prove that we are losing the intelligence which lies
at the root of good taste. What is good taste save applied
intelligence?

How apply what we do not possess?

* * *

IT is the same in other European countries. Vulgarity, human or
otherwise, confronts you.

Go to the East, and you will forget such things. These people with
their gracious movements and gestures, the delicate tints and lines of
their garments, contrast amazingly with the caricatures of humanity
one sees in Europe. They suggest repose; we suggest the reverse. A
white man among a crowd of Orientals is an awe-inspiring apparition.
To judge by his furtive little eyes, his protruding ears, grotesque
hands and general ungainliness--many of them have not yet learnt to
walk properly--one would say he was God's first attempt at man-making;
one would say that the garments he was wearing were his own first
attempt at clothing himself, did we not know that men dressed with
much better taste in bygone days.

They did a good many things with better taste; big things and little
ones. Some time ago I had the privilege of glancing over a collection
of British war-medals. For downright ugliness they take some beating.
Place them, if you dare, beside what was minted in antiquity. Can the
best European pottery, Sevres or Dresden or what you please, be
compared to the best Oriental? Even in trifles like postage stamps
and national flags the Eastern races display more artistry. Oriental
rugs--there is mystery and music in them....

These and other details will penetrate to the understanding of him who
visits India; they will stimulate his sense of beauty and make him
realize the fundamental bad taste of Europe.

Says one who knew the East: "En aucune chose je n'ai jamais apercu la
vulgarite en Asie."

* * *

GOBINEAU could not truthfully say that of present-day India, for the
deplorable fact is that we are importing our bad taste into the
country as fast as we can. You have only to land at Bombay, and Gothic
monstrosities stare you in the face. Let us listen to Mr. Garratt:

"It is a painful thought that the craft of the Hindu builder and
sculptor could flourish under the most puritanical Moslem Government,
but has degenerated at the first contact with the West; that it
survived the iconoclast Aurungzeb but wilted under the touch of the
Public Works Department."

Mr. Townsend also lamented "that pause in the application of
art-knowledge, from architecture down to metal-work and pottery, which
has been synchronous with our rule in India," saying that
"Anglo-Indians doubt whether Indians have the capacity to be
architects, though they built Benares; or engineers, though they dug
the artificial lakes of Tanjore; or poets, though the people sit for
hours or days listening to rhap-sodists as they recite poems which
move them as Tennyson certainly does not move our common people."

Foreign industrialism has invaded all branches of native domestic
arts, and blighted most of them. The country is used as a
dumping-ground for shoddy wares, for aniline dyes from Germany (to the
ruin of indigenous carpets), and other trumpery from Japan and
elsewhere. An ounce of fact: in 1922-23 the importation of artificial
silk was 225 lbs.; in 1926-27 it reached the figure of 5776 lbs.
Indian bazaars are now full of exotic gimcrack whose advent, I am
told, is unavoidable. "Unavoidable" strikes me as ttoo uncompromising
a term; death is unavoidable, not the importation of this trash.

* * *

WHEN the traveller hears the mina singing at his window, when he
watches the peacocks in the woods, the kingfishers over the water, the
kites and eagles gliding overhead, when he spies the monkeys at
Mahintale or among the rosy timber of Mount Abu, then he will think
what Europe might still be, and is not; he will understand that there
is such a thing as leaving wild creatures alone--particularly if he
happens to live among Catholic races, who extirpate all living things
save their own lice and bed-bugs. This feeling grows upon the dullest
European in the East (I have watched the process); he finds himself
possessed of a sense of which he was unaware.

European landscapes are often charming but nearly always dead--dead as
a door-nail; there is no movement in them, no sudden flash of colour,
no surprise.

In Ceylon you may have a surprise, for there lives a beast which the
natives call cabaragoya, half-way between lizard and crocodile, two
yards long; it calls up suggestions of primeval days. The first
cabaragoya you encounter on a jungle path gives you something of a
start, and, although they are sufficiently confiding, and are even
encouraged to settle down near rest-houses, it is not advisable to
take liberties with them. Were this animal to-day as plentiful in
France as it is in Ceylon, would a single one of them be alive at the
end of a month? Not long ago a certain Continental royalty went on a
sporting expedition to East Africa, with a view to making a collection
of specimens of the local fauna for museum purposes. It was not a
collection; it was Good-bye to Western Culture a hecatomb. The museum,
was a pretext to enable him to indulge a barbarian taste for
slaughter.

"The world," says a writer on Tahiti,--"the world was a great and
beautiful museum once, full of beautiful things, all of different
kinds. Then Europeans, growing hungry for new foods, new places to
live in, new places to sell goods in, new folk to teach their religion
to, went round with sticks and broke all the precious things on the
shelves of the world."

This lust of extermination is not a pretty trait.

And the same with the wonderful human fauna of the Pacific. Whoever
reads _Isles of Illusion_ will learn how European missionaries are
"very largely responsible for the wiping out of hundreds of villages";
he will learn how "the horrible octopus of
missionary-cum-trader-cum-official has spread his tentacles
everywhere." The White Man creeps over these regions like some foul
skin disease, eating away the bloom of their features. Or glance into
another book of the Pacific: _Mr. Fortune's Maggot_. This is not only
an original story--a missionary who ends in carving an idol for a
native--but, for those who care to read between the lines, a
disheartening indictment of Europeanism.

Why does one belong to such a race, so sad and yet so ferocious?

* * *

THAT discomfort, the European stomachache from which all of us are
suffering, that moral constipation, has been traced to a variety of
sources. I become more and more convinced, with increasing years, that
the roots of the mischief lie far back, in the Roman point of view.
The shoddiness of our ideals--the shoddiness of all our ideals social
and political--is a heritage from those unimaginative Roundheads, with
their ingrained vulgarity, their imperialism, their pernicious
doctrine of the _raison d'etat_, and the welcome they gave, as
vulgarians naturally would give, to imported pinchbeck like
Christianity.

We have not yet recovered from those thousand years during which we
hacked and burnt each other in honour of that creed; we have to thank
the Romans for the Thirty Years War, the Spanish Inquisition, and
other interludes which have coarsened our mental fibre to this day,
and blunted our apperception of finer issues. No religion is worth
fighting about. The displacement of Buddhism by Hinduism was on a
grander scale than anything in Christendom, and yet, I believe, a
bloodless proceeding. Buddhism, by the way, is about 600 years older
than Christianity. Nevertheless, its history contains "not a single
instance of those religious persecutions which loom so largely in the
history of the Christian Church" (Rhys Davids). And the Romans, by
accepting Christianity, paved the way for our cult of those fetid
"masses" whom, in accordance with New Testamentary injunctions, we are
now breeding as carefully as if they were Pekingese spaniels, and who,
in return, have imposed on us by law their own fatuous and
degrading aspirations. These are our two social legacies from the
Romans.

The political ones are likewise two. Firstly: that tiresome
standardizing mania of theirs destroyed the more delicate tissues in
the national character of people subject--however superior
intellectually--to themselves; the crass monotony of Roman theories of
life and government, of their very architecture--however ill-adapted
to local conditions of race or climate--settled upon the whole world
like a frost, that chilled all indigenous and divergent blossoming.
Everything stereotyped and conventionalized! Needless to say, we have
followed their example in those regions over which we have cast the
net of our own administrative system. Secondly: the state-idolatry of
the Romans, their toga-tomfoolery, has converted European races into a
pack of mongrels snarling at each other.

Newspaper editors find it a profitable business to stimulate these
nationalistic promptings, and to dwell on the catchword of patriotism.
Safely ensconced behind their desks, they exhort our youngsters to die
for their country. Who dies for his country nowadays? Half a dozen
decrepit field-marshals; nobody else. No European country is worth
dying for. What next! Our youngsters get blown to pieces, because they
are kicked into the trenches. They are kicked into the trenches,
because we have absorbed the _civis romanus_ jargon of those
self-inflated _parvenus_.

There are enthusiasts who clamour for an international language.
International common sense would be more to the point.

* * *

HERE are about a hundred footnotes. There may be no end to things of
this kind, but there is a limit. I think the limit has been reached.



THE END



Project Gutenberg Australia