When the business man rebukes the idealism of his office-boy, it is commonly in some such speech as this:  “Ah, yes, when one is young, one has these ideals in the abstract and these castles in the air; but in middle age they all break up like clouds, and one comes down to a belief in practical politics, to using the machinery one has and getting on with the world as it is.”  Thus, at least, venerable and philanthropic old men now in their honoured graves used to talk to me when I was a boy.  But since then I have grown up and have discovered that these philanthropic old men were telling lies.  What has really happened is exactly the opposite of what they said would happen.  They said that I should lose my ideals and begin to believe in the methods of practical politicians.  Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was.  What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics.  I am still as much concerned as ever about the Battle of Armageddon; but I am not so much concerned about the General Election.  As a babe I leapt up on my mother’s knee at the mere mention of it.  No; the vision is always solid and reliable.  The vision is always a fact.  It is the reality that is often a fraud.  As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in Liberalism.  But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in Liberals.

I take this instance of one of the enduring faiths because, having now to trace the roots of my personal speculation, this may be counted, I think, as the only positive bias.  I was brought up a Liberal, and have always believed in democracy, in the elementary liberal doctrine of a self-governing humanity.  If any one finds the phrase vague or threadbare, I can only pause for a moment to explain that the principle of democracy, as I mean it, can be stated in two propositions.  The first is this:  that the things common to all men are more important than the things peculiar to any men.  Ordinary things are more valuable than extraordinary things; nay, they are more extraordinary.  Man is something more awful than men; something more strange.  The sense of the miracle of humanity itself should be always more vivid to us than any marvels of power, intellect, art, or civilization.  The mere man on two legs, as such, should be felt as something more heartbreaking than any music and more startling than any caricature.  Death is more tragic even than death by starvation.  Having a nose is more comic even than having a Norman nose.

This is the first principle of democracy:  that the essential things in men are the things they hold in common, not the things they hold separately.  And the second principle is merely this:  that the political instinct or desire is one of these things which they hold in common.  Falling in love is more poetical than dropping into poetry.  The democratic contention is that government (helping to rule the tribe) is a thing like falling in love, and not a thing like dropping into poetry.  It is not something analogous to playing the church organ, painting on vellum, discovering the North Pole (that insidious habit), looping the loop, being Astronomer Royal, and so on.  For these things we do not wish a man to do at all unless he does them well.  It is, on the contrary, a thing analogous to writing one’s own love-letters or blowing one’s own nose.  These things we want a man to do for himself, even if he does them badly.  I am not here arguing the truth of any of these conceptions; I know that some moderns are asking to have their wives chosen by scientists, and they may soon be asking, for all I know, to have their noses blown by nurses.  I merely say that mankind does recognize these universal human functions, and that democracy classes government among them.  In short, the democratic faith is this:  that the most terribly important things must be left to ordinary men themselves-the mating of the sexes, the rearing of the young, the laws of the state.  This is democracy; and in this I have always believed.

But there is one thing that I have never from my youth up been able to understand.  I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition.  It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time.  It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record.  The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy.  He is appealing to the superiority of one expert against the awful authority of a mob.  It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history.  The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane.  The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad.  Those who urge against tradition that men in the past were ignorant may go and urge it at the Carlton Club, along with the statement that voters in the slums are ignorant.  It will not do for us.  If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable.  Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise.  Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors.  It is the democracy of the dead.  Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.  All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death.  Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.  I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea.  We will have the dead at our councils.  The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones.  It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.

I have first to say, therefore, that if I have had a bias, it was always a bias in favour of democracy, and therefore of tradition.  Before we come to any theoretic or logical beginnings I am content to allow for that personal equation; I have always been more inclined to believe the ruck of hard-working people than to believe that special and troublesome literary class to which I belong.  I prefer even the fancies and prejudices of the people who see life from the inside to the clearest demonstrations of the people who see life from the outside.  I would always trust the old wives’ fables against the old maids’ facts.  As long as wit is mother wit it can be as wild as it pleases.

Now, I have to put together a general position, and I pretend to no training in such things.  I propose to do it, therefore, by writing down one after another the three or four fundamental ideas which I have found for myself, pretty much in the way that I found them.  Then I shall roughly synthesise them, summing up my personal philosophy or natural religion; then I shall describe my startling discovery that the whole thing had been discovered before.  It had been discovered by Christianity.  But of these profound persuasions which I have to recount in order, the earliest was concerned with this element of popular tradition.  And without the foregoing explanation touching tradition and democracy I could hardly make my mental experience clear.  As it is, I do not know whether I can make it clear, but I now propose to try.

My first and last philosophy, that which I believe in with unbroken certainty, I learnt in the nursery.  I generally learnt it from a nurse; that is, from the solemn and star-appointed priestess at once of democracy and tradition.  The things I believed most then, the things I believe most now, are the things called fairy tales.  They seem to me to be the entirely reasonable things.  They are not fantasies:  compared with them other things are fantastic.  Compared with them religion and rationalism are both abnormal, though religion is abnormally right and rationalism abnormally wrong.  Fairyland is nothing but the sunny country of common sense.  It is not earth that judges heaven, but heaven that judges earth; so for me at least it was not earth that criticised elfland, but elfland that criticised the earth.  I knew the magic beanstalk before I had tasted beans; I was sure of the Man in the Moon before I was certain of the moon.  This was at one with all popular tradition.  Modern minor poets are naturalists, and talk about the bush or the brook; but the singers of the old epics and fables were supernaturalists, and talked about the gods of brook and bush.  That is what the moderns mean when they say that the ancients did not “appreciate Nature,” because they said that Nature was divine.  Old nurses do not tell children about the grass, but about the fairies that dance on the grass; and the old Greeks could not see the trees for the dryads.

But I deal here with what ethic and philosophy come from being fed on fairy tales.  If I were describing them in detail I could note many noble and healthy principles that arise from them.  There is the chivalrous lesson of “Jack the Giant Killer”; that giants should be killed because they are gigantic.  It is a manly mutiny against pride as such.  For the rebel is older than all the kingdoms, and the Jacobin has more tradition than the Jacobite.  There is the lesson of “Cinderella,” which is the same as that of the Magnificat- EXALTAVIT HUMILES.  There is the great lesson of “Beauty and the Beast”; that a thing must be loved before it is loveable.  There is the terrible allegory of the “Sleeping Beauty,” which tells how the human creature was blessed with all birthday gifts, yet cursed with death; and how death also may perhaps be softened to a sleep.  But I am not concerned with any of the separate statutes of elfland, but with the whole spirit of its law, which I learnt before I could speak, and shall retain when I cannot write.  I am concerned with a certain way of looking at life, which was created in me by the fairy tales, but has since been meekly ratified by the mere facts.

It might be stated this way.  There are certain sequences or developments (cases of one thing following another), which are, in the true sense of the word, reasonable.  They are, in the true sense of the word, necessary.  Such are mathematical and merely logical sequences.  We in fairyland (who are the most reasonable of all creatures) admit that reason and that necessity.  For instance, if the Ugly Sisters are older than Cinderella, it is (in an iron and awful sense) necessary that Cinderella is younger than the Ugly Sisters.  There is no getting out of it.  Haeckel may talk as much fatalism about that fact as he pleases:  it really must be.  If Jack is the son of a miller, a miller is the father of Jack.  Cold reason decrees it from her awful throne:  and we in fairyland submit.  If the three brothers all ride horses, there are six animals and eighteen legs involved:  that is true rationalism, and fairyland is full of it.  But as I put my head over the hedge of the elves and began to take notice of the natural world, I observed an extraordinary thing.  I observed that learned men in spectacles were talking of the actual things that happened- dawn and death and so on-as if they were rational and inevitable.  They talked as if the fact that trees bear fruit were just as necessary as the fact that two and one trees make three.  But it is not.  There is an enormous difference by the test of fairyland; which is the test of the imagination.  You cannot imagine two and one not making three.  But you can easily imagine trees not growing fruit; you can imagine them growing golden candlesticks or tigers hanging on by the tail.  These men in spectacles spoke much of a man named Newton, who was hit by an apple, and who discovered a law.  But they could not be got to see the distinction between a true law, a law of reason, and the mere fact of apples falling.  If the apple hit Newton’s nose, Newton’s nose hit the apple.  That is a true necessity:  because we cannot conceive the one occurring without the other.  But we can quite well conceive the apple not falling on his nose; we can fancy it flying ardently through the air to hit some other nose, of which it had a more definite dislike.  We have always in our fairy tales kept this sharp distinction between the science of mental relations, in which there really are laws, and the science of physical facts, in which there are no laws, but only weird repetitions.  We believe in bodily miracles, but not in mental impossibilities.  We believe that a Bean-stalk climbed up to Heaven; but that does not at all confuse our convictions on the philosophical question of how many beans make five.

Here is the peculiar perfection of tone and truth in the nursery tales.  The man of science says, “Cut the stalk, and the apple will fall”; but he says it calmly, as if the one idea really led up to the other.  The witch in the fairy tale says, “Blow the horn, and the ogre’s castle will fall”; but she does not say it as if it were something in which the effect obviously arose out of the cause.  Doubtless she has given the advice to many champions, and has seen many castles fall, but she does not lose either her wonder or her reason.  She does not muddle her head until it imagines a necessary mental connection between a horn and a falling tower.  But the scientific men do muddle their heads, until they imagine a necessary mental connection between an apple leaving the tree and an apple reaching the ground.  They do really talk as if they had found not only a set of marvellous facts, but a truth connecting those facts.  They do talk as if the connection of two strange things physically connected them philosophically.  They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two together somehow make up a comprehensible thing.  Two black riddles make a white answer.

In fairyland we avoid the word “law”; but in the land of science they are singularly fond of it.  Thus they will call some interesting conjecture about how forgotten folks pronounced the alphabet, Grimm’s Law.  But Grimm’s Law is far less intellectual than Grimm’s Fairy Tales.  The tales are, at any rate, certainly tales; while the law is not a law.  A law implies that we know the nature of the generalisation and enactment; not merely that we have noticed some of the effects.  If there is a law that pick-pockets shall go to prison, it implies that there is an imaginable mental connection between the idea of prison and the idea of picking pockets.  And we know what the idea is.  We can say why we take liberty from a man who takes liberties.  But we cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken any more than we can say why a bear could turn into a fairy prince.  As ideas, the egg and the chicken are further off from each other than the bear and the prince; for no egg in itself suggests a chicken, whereas some princes do suggest bears.  Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we should regard them in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the “Laws of Nature.”  When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o’clock.  We must answer that it is magic.  It is not a “law,” for we do not understand its general formula.  It is not a necessity, for though we can count on it happening practically, we have no right to say that it must always happen.  It is no argument for unalterable law (as Huxley fancied) that we count on the ordinary course of things.  We do not count on it; we bet on it.  We risk the remote possibility of a miracle as we do that of a poisoned pancake or a world-destroying comet.  We leave it out of account, not because it is a miracle, and therefore an impossibility, but because it is a miracle, and therefore an exception.  All the terms used in the science books, “law,” “necessity,” “order,” “tendency,” and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess.  The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, “charm,” “spell,” “enchantment.”  They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery.  A tree grows fruit because it is a magic tree.  Water runs downhill because it is bewitched.  The sun shines because it is bewitched.

I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical.  We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic.  It is the only way I can express in words my clear and definite perception that one thing is quite distinct from another; that there is no logical connection between flying and laying eggs.  It is the man who talks about “a law” that he has never seen who is the mystic.  Nay, the ordinary scientific man is strictly a sentimentalist.  He is a sentimentalist in this essential sense, that he is soaked and swept away by mere associations.  He has so often seen birds fly and lay eggs that he feels as if there must be some dreamy, tender connection between the two ideas, whereas there is none.  A forlorn lover might be unable to dissociate the moon from lost love; so the materialist is unable to dissociate the moon from the tide.  In both cases there is no connection, except that one has seen them together.  A sentimentalist might shed tears at the smell of apple-blossom, because, by a dark association of his own, it reminded him of his boyhood.  So the materialist professor (though he conceals his tears) is yet a sentimentalist, because, by a dark association of his own, apple-blossoms remind him of apples.  But the cool rationalist from fairyland does not see why, in the abstract, the apple tree should not grow crimson tulips; it sometimes does in his country.

This elementary wonder, however, is not a mere fancy derived from the fairy tales; on the contrary, all the fire of the fairy tales is derived from this.  Just as we all like love tales because there is an instinct of sex, we all like astonishing tales because they touch the nerve of the ancient instinct of astonishment.  This is proved by the fact that when we are very young children we do not need fairy tales:  we only need tales.  Mere life is interesting enough.  A child of seven is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door and saw a dragon.  But a child of three is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door.  Boys like romantic tales; but babies like realistic tales-because they find them romantic.  In fact, a baby is about the only person, I should think, to whom a modern realistic novel could be read without boring him.  This proves that even nursery tales only echo an almost pre-natal leap of interest and amazement.  These tales say that apples were golden only to refresh the forgotten moment when we found that they were green.  They make rivers run with wine only to make us remember, for one wild moment, that they run with water.  I have said that this is wholly reasonable and even agnostic.  And, indeed, on this point I am all for the higher agnosticism; its better name is Ignorance.  We have all read in scientific books, and, indeed, in all romances, the story of the man who has forgotten his name.  This man walks about the streets and can see and appreciate everything; only he cannot remember who he is.  Well, every man is that man in the story.  Every man has forgotten who he is.  One may understand the cosmos, but never the ego; the self is more distant than any star.  Thou shalt love the Lord thy God; but thou shalt not know thyself.  We are all under the same mental calamity; we have all forgotten our names.  We have all forgotten what we really are.  All that we call common sense and rationality and practicality and positivism only means that for certain dead levels of our life we forget that we have forgotten.  All that we call spirit and art and ecstasy only means that for one awful instant we remember that we forget.

But though (like the man without memory in the novel) we walk the streets with a sort of half-witted admiration, still it is admiration.  It is admiration in English and not only admiration in Latin.  The wonder has a positive element of praise.  This is the next milestone to be definitely marked on our road through fairyland.  I shall speak in the next chapter about optimists and pessimists in their intellectual aspect, so far as they have one.  Here I am only trying to describe the enormous emotions which cannot be described.  And the strongest emotion was that life was as precious as it was puzzling.  It was an ecstasy because it was an adventure; it was an adventure because it was an opportunity.  The goodness of the fairy tale was not affected by the fact that there might be more dragons than princesses; it was good to be in a fairy tale.  The test of all happiness is gratitude; and I felt grateful, though I hardly knew to whom.  Children are grateful when Santa Claus puts in their stockings gifts of toys or sweets.  Could I not be grateful to Santa Claus when he put in my stockings the gift of two miraculous legs?  We thank people for birthday presents of cigars and slippers.  Can I thank no one for the birthday present of birth?

There were, then, these two first feelings, indefensible and indisputable.  The world was a shock, but it was not merely shocking; existence was a surprise, but it was a pleasant surprise.  In fact, all my first views were exactly uttered in a riddle that stuck in my brain from boyhood.  The question was, “What did the first frog say?” And the answer was, “Lord, how you made me jump!” That says succinctly all that I am saying.  God made the frog jump; but the frog prefers jumping.  But when these things are settled there enters the second great principle of the fairy philosophy.

Any one can see it who will simply read “Grimm’s Fairy Tales” or the fine collections of Mr. Andrew Lang.  For the pleasure of pedantry I will call it the Doctrine of Conditional Joy.  Touchstone talked of much virtue in an “if”; according to elfin ethics all virtue is in an “if.”  The note of the fairy utterance always is, “You may live in a palace of gold and sapphire, if you do not say the word `cow’”; or “You may live happily with the King’s daughter, if you do not show her an onion.”  The vision always hangs upon a veto.  All the dizzy and colossal things conceded depend upon one small thing withheld.  All the wild and whirling things that are let loose depend upon one thing that is forbidden.  Mr. W.B.Yeats, in his exquisite and piercing elfin poetry, describes the elves as lawless; they plunge in innocent anarchy on the unbridled horses of the air-

“Ride on the crest of the dishevelled tide, And dance upon the mountains like a flame.”

It is a dreadful thing to say that Mr. W.B.Yeats does not understand fairyland.  But I do say it.  He is an ironical Irishman, full of intellectual reactions.  He is not stupid enough to understand fairyland.  Fairies prefer people of the yokel type like myself; people who gape and grin and do as they are told.  Mr. Yeats reads into elfland all the righteous insurrection of his own race.  But the lawlessness of Ireland is a Christian lawlessness, founded on reason and justice.  The Fenian is rebelling against something he understands only too well; but the true citizen of fairyland is obeying something that he does not understand at all.  In the fairy tale an incomprehensible happiness rests upon an incomprehensible condition.  A box is opened, and all evils fly out.  A word is forgotten, and cities perish.  A lamp is lit, and love flies away.  A flower is plucked, and human lives are forfeited.  An apple is eaten, and the hope of God is gone.

This is the tone of fairy tales, and it is certainly not lawlessness or even liberty, though men under a mean modern tyranny may think it liberty by comparison.  People out of Portland Gaol might think Fleet Street free; but closer study will prove that both fairies and journalists are the slaves of duty.  Fairy godmothers seem at least as strict as other godmothers.  Cinderella received a coach out of Wonderland and a coachman out of nowhere, but she received a command-which might have come out of Brixton-that she should be back by twelve.  Also, she had a glass slipper; and it cannot be a coincidence that glass is so common a substance in folk-lore.  This princess lives in a glass castle, that princess on a glass hill; this one sees all things in a mirror; they may all live in glass houses if they will not throw stones.  For this thin glitter of glass everywhere is the expression of the fact that the happiness is bright but brittle, like the substance most easily smashed by a housemaid or a cat.  And this fairy-tale sentiment also sank into me and became my sentiment towards the whole world.  I felt and feel that life itself is as bright as the diamond, but as brittle as the window-pane; and when the heavens were compared to the terrible crystal I can remember a shudder.  I was afraid that God would drop the cosmos with a crash.

Remember, however, that to be breakable is not the same as to be perishable.  Strike a glass, and it will not endure an instant; simply do not strike it, and it will endure a thousand years.  Such, it seemed, was the joy of man, either in elfland or on earth; the happiness depended on not doing something which you could at any moment do and which, very often, it was not obvious why you should not do.  Now, the point here is that to me this did not seem unjust.  If the miller’s third son said to the fairy, “Explain why I must not stand on my head in the fairy palace,” the other might fairly reply, “Well, if it comes to that, explain the fairy palace.”  If Cinderella says, “How is it that I must leave the ball at twelve?” her godmother might answer, “How is it that you are going there till twelve?” If I leave a man in my will ten talking elephants and a hundred winged horses, he cannot complain if the conditions partake of the slight eccentricity of the gift.  He must not look a winged horse in the mouth.  And it seemed to me that existence was itself so very eccentric a legacy that I could not complain of not understanding the limitations of the vision when I did not understand the vision they limited.  The frame was no stranger than the picture.  The veto might well be as wild as the vision; it might be as startling as the sun, as elusive as the waters, as fantastic and terrible as the towering trees.

For this reason (we may call it the fairy godmother philosophy) I never could join the young men of my time in feeling what they called the general sentiment of revolt.  I should have resisted, let us hope, any rules that were evil, and with these and their definition I shall deal in another chapter.  But I did not feel disposed to resist any rule merely because it was mysterious.  Estates are sometimes held by foolish forms, the breaking of a stick or the payment of a peppercorn:  I was willing to hold the huge estate of earth and heaven by any such feudal fantasy.  It could not well be wilder than the fact that I was allowed to hold it at all.  At this stage I give only one ethical instance to show my meaning.  I could never mix in the common murmur of that rising generation against monogamy, because no restriction on sex seemed so odd and unexpected as sex itself.  To be allowed, like Endymion, to make love to the moon and then to complain that Jupiter kept his own moons in a harem seemed to me (bred on fairy tales like Endymion’s) a vulgar anti-climax.  Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman.  To complain that I could only be married once was like complaining that I had only been born once.  It was incommensurate with the terrible excitement of which one was talking.  It showed, not an exaggerated sensibility to sex, but a curious insensibility to it.  A man is a fool who complains that he cannot enter Eden by five gates at once.  Polygamy is a lack of the realization of sex; it is like a man plucking five pears in mere absence of mind.  The aesthetes touched the last insane limits of language in their eulogy on lovely things.  The thistledown made them weep; a burnished beetle brought them to their knees.  Yet their emotion never impressed me for an instant, for this reason, that it never occurred to them to pay for their pleasure in any sort of symbolic sacrifice.  Men (I felt) might fast forty days for the sake of hearing a blackbird sing.  Men might go through fire to find a cowslip.  Yet these lovers of beauty could not even keep sober for the blackbird.  They would not go through common Christian marriage by way of recompense to the cowslip.  Surely one might pay for extraordinary joy in ordinary morals.  Oscar Wilde said that sunsets were not valued because we could not pay for sunsets.  But Oscar Wilde was wrong; we can pay for sunsets.  We can pay for them by not being Oscar Wilde.

Well, I left the fairy tales lying on the floor of the nursery, and I have not found any books so sensible since.  I left the nurse guardian of tradition and democracy, and I have not found any modern type so sanely radical or so sanely conservative.  But the matter for important comment was here:  that when I first went out into the mental atmosphere of the modern world, I found that the modern world was positively opposed on two points to my nurse and to the nursery tales.  It has taken me a long time to find out that the modern world is wrong and my nurse was right.  The really curious thing was this:  that modern thought contradicted this basic creed of my boyhood on its two most essential doctrines.  I have explained that the fairy tales founded in me two convictions; first, that this world is a wild and startling place, which might have been quite different, but which is quite delightful; second, that before this wildness and delight one may well be modest and submit to the queerest limitations of so queer a kindness.  But I found the whole modern world running like a high tide against both my tendernesses; and the shock of that collision created two sudden and spontaneous sentiments, which I have had ever since and which, crude as they were, have since hardened into convictions.

First, I found the whole modern world talking scientific fatalism; saying that everything is as it must always have been, being unfolded without fault from the beginning.  The leaf on the tree is green because it could never have been anything else.  Now, the fairy-tale philosopher is glad that the leaf is green precisely because it might have been scarlet.  He feels as if it had turned green an instant before he looked at it.  He is pleased that snow is white on the strictly reasonable ground that it might have been black.  Every colour has in it a bold quality as of choice; the red of garden roses is not only decisive but dramatic, like suddenly spilt blood.  He feels that something has been done.  But the great determinists of the nineteenth century were strongly against this native feeling that something had happened an instant before.  In fact, according to them, nothing ever really had happened since the beginning of the world.  Nothing ever had happened since existence had happened; and even about the date of that they were not very sure.

The modern world as I found it was solid for modern Calvinism, for the necessity of things being as they are.  But when I came to ask them I found they had really no proof of this unavoidable repetition in things except the fact that the things were repeated.  Now, the mere repetition made the things to me rather more weird than more rational.  It was as if, having seen a curiously shaped nose in the street and dismissed it as an accident, I had then seen six other noses of the same astonishing shape.  I should have fancied for a moment that it must be some local secret society.  So one elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot.  I speak here only of an emotion, and of an emotion at once stubborn and subtle.  But the repetition in Nature seemed sometimes to be an excited repetition, like that of an angry schoolmaster saying the same thing over and over again.  The grass seemed signalling to me with all its fingers at once; the crowded stars seemed bent upon being understood.  The sun would make me see him if he rose a thousand times.  The recurrences of the universe rose to the maddening rhythm of an incantation, and I began to see an idea.

All the towering materialism which dominates the modern mind rests ultimately upon one assumption; a false assumption.  It is supposed that if a thing goes on repeating itself it is probably dead; a piece of clockwork.  People feel that if the universe was personal it would vary; if the sun were alive it would dance.  This is a fallacy even in relation to known fact.  For the variation in human affairs is generally brought into them, not by life, but by death; by the dying down or breaking off of their strength or desire.  A man varies his movements because of some slight element of failure or fatigue.  He gets into an omnibus because he is tired of walking; or he walks because he is tired of sitting still.  But if his life and joy were so gigantic that he never tired of going to Islington, he might go to Islington as regularly as the Thames goes to Sheerness.  The very speed and ecstasy of his life would have the stillness of death.  The sun rises every morning.  I do not rise every morning; but the variation is due not to my activity, but to my inaction.  Now, to put the matter in a popular phrase, it might be true that the sun rises regularly because he never gets tired of rising.  His routine might be due, not to a lifelessness, but to a rush of life.  The thing I mean can be seen, for instance, in children, when they find some game or joke that they specially enjoy.  A child kicks his legs rhythmically through excess, not absence, of life.  Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged.  They always say, “Do it again”; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead.  For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony.  But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony.  It is possible that God says every morning, “Do it again” to the sun; and every evening, “Do it again” to the moon.  It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them.  It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.  The repetition in Nature may not be a mere recurrence; it may be a theatrical encore.  Heaven may encore the bird who laid an egg.  If the human being conceives and brings forth a human child instead of bringing forth a fish, or a bat, or a griffin, the reason may not be that we are fixed in an animal fate without life or purpose.  It may be that our little tragedy has touched the gods, that they admire it from their starry galleries, and that at the end of every human drama man is called again and again before the curtain.  Repetition may go on for millions of years, by mere choice, and at any instant it may stop.  Man may stand on the earth generation after generation, and yet each birth be his positively last appearance.

This was my first conviction; made by the shock of my childish emotions meeting the modern creed in mid-career.  I had always vaguely felt facts to be miracles in the sense that they are wonderful:  now I began to think them miracles in the stricter sense that they were wilful.  I mean that they were, or might be, repeated exercises of some will.  In short, I had always believed that the world involved magic:  now I thought that perhaps it involved a magician.  And this pointed a profound emotion always present and sub-conscious; that this world of ours has some purpose; and if there is a purpose, there is a person.  I had always felt life first as a story:  and if there is a story there is a story-teller.

But modern thought also hit my second human tradition.  It went against the fairy feeling about strict limits and conditions.  The one thing it loved to talk about was expansion and largeness.  Herbert Spencer would have been greatly annoyed if any one had called him an imperialist, and therefore it is highly regrettable that nobody did.  But he was an imperialist of the lowest type.  He popularized this contemptible notion that the size of the solar system ought to over-awe the spiritual dogma of man.  Why should a man surrender his dignity to the solar system any more than to a whale?  If mere size proves that man is not the image of God, then a whale may be the image of God; a somewhat formless image; what one might call an impressionist portrait.  It is quite futile to argue that man is small compared to the cosmos; for man was always small compared to the nearest tree.  But Herbert Spencer, in his headlong imperialism, would insist that we had in some way been conquered and annexed by the astronomical universe.  He spoke about men and their ideals exactly as the most insolent Unionist talks about the Irish and their ideals.  He turned mankind into a small nationality.  And his evil influence can be seen even in the most spirited and honourable of later scientific authors; notably in the early romances of Mr. H.G.Wells.  Many moralists have in an exaggerated way represented the earth as wicked.  But Mr. Wells and his school made the heavens wicked.  We should lift up our eyes to the stars from whence would come our ruin.

But the expansion of which I speak was much more evil than all this.  I have remarked that the materialist, like the madman, is in prison; in the prison of one thought.  These people seemed to think it singularly inspiring to keep on saying that the prison was very large.  The size of this scientific universe gave one no novelty, no relief.  The cosmos went on for ever, but not in its wildest constellation could there be anything really interesting; anything, for instance, such as forgiveness or free will.  The grandeur or infinity of the secret of its cosmos added nothing to it.  It was like telling a prisoner in Reading gaol that he would be glad to hear that the gaol now covered half the county.  The warder would have nothing to show the man except more and more long corridors of stone lit by ghastly lights and empty of all that is human.  So these expanders of the universe had nothing to show us except more and more infinite corridors of space lit by ghastly suns and empty of all that is divine.

In fairyland there had been a real law; a law that could be broken, for the definition of a law is something that can be broken.  But the machinery of this cosmic prison was something that could not be broken; for we ourselves were only a part of its machinery.  We were either unable to do things or we were destined to do them.  The idea of the mystical condition quite disappeared; one can neither have the firmness of keeping laws nor the fun of breaking them.  The largeness of this universe had nothing of that freshness and airy outbreak which we have praised in the universe of the poet.  This modern universe is literally an empire; that is, it was vast, but it is not free.  One went into larger and larger windowless rooms, rooms big with Babylonian perspective; but one never found the smallest window or a whisper of outer air.

Their infernal parallels seemed to expand with distance; but for me all good things come to a point, swords for instance.  So finding the boast of the big cosmos so unsatisfactory to my emotions I began to argue about it a little; and I soon found that the whole attitude was even shallower than could have been expected.  According to these people the cosmos was one thing since it had one unbroken rule.  Only (they would say) while it is one thing, it is also the only thing there is.  Why, then, should one worry particularly to call it large?  There is nothing to compare it with.  It would be just as sensible to call it small.  A man may say, “I like this vast cosmos, with its throng of stars and its crowd of varied creatures.”  But if it comes to that why should not a man say, “I like this cosy little cosmos, with its decent number of stars and as neat a provision of live stock as I wish to see”?  One is as good as the other; they are both mere sentiments.  It is mere sentiment to rejoice that the sun is larger than the earth; it is quite as sane a sentiment to rejoice that the sun is no larger than it is.  A man chooses to have an emotion about the largeness of the world; why should he not choose to have an emotion about its smallness?

It happened that I had that emotion.  When one is fond of anything one addresses it by diminutives, even if it is an elephant or a life-guardsman.  The reason is, that anything, however huge, that can be conceived of as complete, can be conceived of as small.  If military moustaches did not suggest a sword or tusks a tail, then the object would be vast because it would be immeasurable.  But the moment you can imagine a guardsman you can imagine a small guardsman.  The moment you really see an elephant you can call it “Tiny.”  If you can make a statue of a thing you can make a statuette of it.  These people professed that the universe was one coherent thing; but they were not fond of the universe.  But I was frightfully fond of the universe and wanted to address it by a diminutive.  I often did so; and it never seemed to mind.  Actually and in truth I did feel that these dim dogmas of vitality were better expressed by calling the world small than by calling it large.  For about infinity there was a sort of carelessness which was the reverse of the fierce and pious care which I felt touching the pricelessness and the peril of life.  They showed only a dreary waste; but I felt a sort of sacred thrift.  For economy is far more romantic than extravagance.  To them stars were an unending income of halfpence; but I felt about the golden sun and the silver moon as a schoolboy feels if he has one sovereign and one shilling.

These subconscious convictions are best hit off by the colour and tone of certain tales.  Thus I have said that stories of magic alone can express my sense that life is not only a pleasure but a kind of eccentric privilege.  I may express this other feeling of cosmic cosiness by allusion to another book always read in boyhood, “Robinson Crusoe,” which I read about this time, and which owes its eternal vivacity to the fact that it celebrates the poetry of limits, nay, even the wild romance of prudence.  Crusoe is a man on a small rock with a few comforts just snatched from the sea:  the best thing in the book is simply the list of things saved from the wreck.  The greatest of poems is an inventory.  Every kitchen tool becomes ideal because Crusoe might have dropped it in the sea.  It is a good exercise, in empty or ugly hours of the day, to look at anything, the coal-scuttle or the book-case, and think how happy one could be to have brought it out of the sinking ship on to the solitary island.  But it is a better exercise still to remember how all things have had this hair-breadth escape:  everything has been saved from a wreck.  Every man has had one horrible adventure:  as a hidden untimely birth he had not been, as infants that never see the light.  Men spoke much in my boyhood of restricted or ruined men of genius:  and it was common to say that many a man was a Great Might-Have-Been.  To me it is a more solid and startling fact that any man in the street is a Great Might-Not-Have-Been.

But I really felt (the fancy may seem foolish) as if all the order and number of things were the romantic remnant of Crusoe’s ship.  That there are two sexes and one sun, was like the fact that there were two guns and one axe.  It was poignantly urgent that none should be lost; but somehow, it was rather fun that none could be added.  The trees and the planets seemed like things saved from the wreck:  and when I saw the Matterhorn I was glad that it had not been overlooked in the confusion.  I felt economical about the stars as if they were sapphires (they are called so in Milton’s Eden):  I hoarded the hills.  For the universe is a single jewel, and while it is a natural cant to talk of a jewel as peerless and priceless, of this jewel it is literally true.  This cosmos is indeed without peer and without price:  for there cannot be another one.

Thus ends, in unavoidable inadequacy, the attempt to utter the unutterable things.  These are my ultimate attitudes towards life; the soils for the seeds of doctrine.  These in some dark way I thought before I could write, and felt before I could think:  that we may proceed more easily afterwards, I will roughly recapitulate them now.  I felt in my bones; first, that this world does not explain itself.  It may be a miracle with a supernatural explanation; it may be a conjuring trick, with a natural explanation.  But the explanation of the conjuring trick, if it is to satisfy me, will have to be better than the natural explanations I have heard.  The thing is magic, true or false.  Second, I came to feel as if magic must have a meaning, and meaning must have some one to mean it.  There was something personal in the world, as in a work of art; whatever it meant it meant violently.  Third, I thought this purpose beautiful in its old design, in spite of its defects, such as dragons.  Fourth, that the proper form of thanks to it is some form of humility and restraint:  we should thank God for beer and Burgundy by not drinking too much of them.  We owed, also, an obedience to whatever made us.  And last, and strangest, there had come into my mind a vague and vast impression that in some way all good was a remnant to be stored and held sacred out of some primordial ruin.  Man had saved his good as Crusoe saved his goods:  he had saved them from a wreck.  All this I felt and the age gave me no encouragement to feel it.  And all this time I had not even thought of Christian theology.