later
later
NOTESOF THE W E E K . 1 CURRENT CANT .3 FOREIGN AFFAIRS. By S . Verdad . 4 MILITARY NOTES. By Romney . .5 DANGER ! 6 . FREEDOM THE GuILD.—1. By G . D. H. Cole . 7 IN THE ARABQUESTION. By Marmaduke Pickthall g THEMELTINGOF THE GLACIER. By E. A. Boyd . IO IMPRESSIONS PARIS. By Alice Morning OF . II READERS WRITERS. P. Selver and E. A. B. 13 AND By .. . . . . PAGE . . . . VIEWSAND REVIEWS WAR. By A. E. R. . : BRITISHMUSIC V. GERMAN MUSIC. By Josef Holbrooke PASTICHE. Edward Moore, A. E. Watts, Vectis, By C. G., Cyril S. Davis .' LETTERS TO THE EDITOR from Fairplay, R. B. Kerr, Charles Chester, Arthur Brenton, John Brown, Marmaduke Pickthall, Hope, Stanley An Indian Nationalist, T. Lovell, A Blonde Beast, Spial Searchemont, M. W. Robieson, Willy Pogany, E. Cowley, Oscar Levy PAGE 15 . . 16 18 . . 19 NOTES OF THE WEEK. recover a little from the prostration it experienced from the loss of a small percentage of its members abroad ; and is now a t its old post, begging bowl in hand, in its habitual attitude of mendicancy. T h eW a r Emergency Workers' National Committee,presidedover by Mr. Henderson, and composed of representatives of most of the Labour organisations, has put forward demands of a most comprehensive kind. They refer respectively to the pay and provision for proletariat soldiers on service, to the maintenance of unemployed proletarian civilians, and to the nature of the legislation desired by the Labour representatives when the war is over. W e cannotsay that upon one of these three heads the Committee offers f suggestions of a novel o r even o an extravagant character. On thecontrary, as weshallshow,thedemands are so familiar a s to be almost banal; and so moderate as to be rather reactionary revolutionary. than What, however, is striking about them is that they do not indicatein a single syllable any sense of the realities of the situation or any cornprehension of the fact, so clear to everybody else, that beggars cannot expect to be at the same time choosers. The Labour movement, it appears, imagines that it can abandon its organisations, of strengthening the Trade cease all itsproperwork Unions and throw itself into the arms of the capitalist parties, andstillcommand attentionforitsdemands. Never was mistake greater. As certainly as the movement allows its attention to be distracted by any cause whatever from thesingleobject of emancipation for which it exists, so certainly will its enemies first ignore and then refuse its demands. THE Labour movement hasbegunto * * * recruiting an excuse for imposing Conscription on the nationwhilethewarisstillbeingfought.Wouldit not be thought that both these reflections might have occurred to the Labour Committee and their natural consequences duly prepared against? Yet, as we have said, not a trace of theirrecognitionistobefound in the we are afraid that not a Committee'smanifesto;and trace of either is to be found in their minds. But consider how obvious they both are and how prettily they of it there is not supplement one another. On the face the smallest doubt that the nation, being in a generous mood, would gladly make an almost imperial provision for the men at the front. There is, in fact, no need to But, press the case as far as the public isconcerned. on theotherhand,except in themostgrudgingand stingy fashion, the Government, while squandering millions on less vital needs, deliberately refrains from raising pay the of the soldiers. Why? There must be some reason for it. The Government cannot be supposed to be taking the public at its word to spendextravagantly only onmatters of lesspublic importanceand to spend meanly on matters of greater public importance without a sufficient reason. I t would be absurd, indeed, 'to accuse them of such folly. No, we may be quite certain that if, in spite of the clamour of the public, the pay at the of the Army nevertheless raised is not when same moment the Government is gladly paying through the nose for everything else, the explanation is not economy, but economics. They fear-and rightly-that the more generous the provision made to-day for our proletarian troops and their dependents, the more generous would betheprovisiondemanded by thesameclass whentheyresumetheirindustrialservitude. And they are not disposed to risk that issue. Regarding thedemandfortheproperpayment of the troops and for the proper provision of pensions for their dependentsit is useless to continueituntilthe two chief obstacles to the concessions are cleared out of What are they? They are, first, that without a muchmore peremptory address than the Labour movement .has yet adopted, the governing classes will of soldiersbeyondthe level of notraisethepayment the worst-paid labourers ; and, secondly, that unless instant steps are taken to head them off from that direction, our governing classes mean to make the' failure of theway But not only is that issue the very one that ought to beforcedfromitshiding placein the countinghouse minds of cur commercial rulersanddraggedintothe light 'by the Labour movement ; but on penalty of being compelled to withdrawfromthe war beforeits conclusion, the governing classes should be made to settle it. W e know, of course, that in many ways the war is as much a people's war as a war of ourpropertied classes ; a n d , we know, moreover, that a wave of' the hand from Lord Kitchener has called tens of thousands of voluntary soldiers into being. more, Still it is * * * 2 highly probable that, without raising the Army pay by another penny, further drafts, of recruits be may obtained from amongtheproletariat by themereadalso consider vertisement But for them. we may whether in the long run these recruits will be sufficiently numerous to see the war through ; or, on the other hand, whether something will not need to be done to supplement the inducements. present If, as few people suppose, the present means should prove to be able to give us the Army thewar needs, well and good-no moreis tobesaid.But if, as practicallyeverycompetentjudgeagrees,thewar to be ‘satisfactorily consummated ’will require f a r more soldiers than the present conditions of recruiting can provide, the question arises by what means the conditions are to ‘be improved. The Labour movement naturally, and the public for the moment, favour .anincrease in thepayment offered. Given, theysay, anhonourableprovisionforboththe man on service and for his dependents if he is killed, and the W a r Office can count upon just as many troops as there are able-bodiedmenin the proletarian ranks. There is practically no limit to the reserves of men upon whom a W a r Ministerdeterminedonpayingthem no more than public opinion would heartily approve, could draw. If, in short,ourvoluntaryarmyshouldfail to grow withevery need thewar may put upon us,the reason will be, not that the voluntary system will have will have been brokendown of necessity,butthatit broken-down by deliberate design. * * * Prussianism; above all, when there is no need save the fears o our capitalists for their post-bellum wage-bills. f * * * The break-down of the voluntary system will not, however, bebroughtabout before preparationshave been made to establishCompulsionin its place. Not o finlikely ; fur we may give our oligarchy the credit tending to see the through war by one means or another. But what will, weimagine,occur is that, as the war proceeds and ever fresh drafts of recruits are needed, theGovernment at the same time that it will continue, without offering any explanation, to refuse to raise the scale o provision (the only means of maintainf ing the voluntary system) will also prepare the way for of compulsoryservice.This,in settingupthesystem fact, is likely to be alternative the into which the Government will pretend to be forced as the war goes on. “The voluntary system,” they will say, “ has failed to give us the men we need ; we have done our best to work it, but it has broken down ; what is there left but Conscription?” And provided that the Labour movement do not nowand at once kill that lie and affirm thatthe voluntarysystem shall bemaintained, costwhatit may in subsequentindustrial ‘revolution, the public, we have no doubt, will accept the Government’s assurance and bellow for Conscription as to-day is it demanding better pay for the recruits. Our fears on this count are not, in fact, so imaginary as they mayappear. It is rumoured thatLordKitchenerhas already had all the forms printed for the instant execution o an Act of Conscription. f They there are at Whitehall awaiting the word of the Government to let them loose upon us. And another consideration is this, that Conscription must be established during this war or never. For if we get through Armageddon without resortingto Compulsion, Compulsion will have been proved unnecessary; while, if we fail togetthrough without it, we can safely leave the matter t o b e settled forus by the Germans. Np, the voluntary system is on its final trial in this war; this is its last ordeal. Post,” for inThere are those-like the “Morning stance-who do not intend to give it a fair chance. The commercial classes likewise donotintendtogiveit a fair chance. The Labour movement has therefore to say that not only shallthe voluntary system be given the chancealone fair it needs, but under that, no circumstances whatever, though the war should ‘appear to be about to end in our defeat, shall Conscription be put upon them. Better far, we say, that Prussia should conquer France that thanEngIand adopt should Concerning the remaining species into which the demands of the Labour Committee fall we shall not have to think a great much to say, but we shall take leave f deal. The temporary .relief o workmen who may suffer by reason of the war is not, we dare to say, a sufficient justification for the formation of a Committee which is to be the sole organ of Labour throughout the whole crisis.Admitted by all meansthat a Labour Medical Corps is necessary during the industrial difficulties now suddenly intensified, itis neither policy norsenseto ability to devotethe whole of theLabourexecutives’ relief and none whatever to the prosecution of their main task. On the contrary, exactly by reason of the obvious necessity for relief-obvious, we mean, to the public no less than t o the Labour organisations-the Labour leaders are freed from what is usually their sole responsibility andmay, if theychoose,devotethemselvesto reconstructive work in the certainty that mere relief-will be attended to. Even should this be beyond their grasp, all their labour need not necessarily be lost : for of the forms of relief which may be offered to their class, some will be better and some worse, judged by our final test of emancipation ; and it isplainly the duty of the Labour to resistthelatter. movement topressthefirstand Consider,forexample,thepalliativesthathave been suggested for dealing with the increment of unemployment in the insured trade unions, the probable total unemployment in the cotton trade and the general all-round lowering of wagesconsequentupontheworld’s contracted demand for industrial commodities. Almost without exception the remedies put forward are nothing more than State charity. But of all the possibleremedies,not only is StatecharitytheworstforLabour, since it forges a newlink in the chain that will drag Labourintoorganisedandirremediableservility,but it is manifestly impolitic from every point of view save that of the capitalists who will immediately profit by it. If there be, as, of course, there are, industries that cannot employ their wage-earners during war, the the to assume the remedy is not’ for the State voluntarily maintenance of the men thrown out of work and afterto their original private emwards to hand them back ployers to exploit again ; butfortheStateandthe Unions to insist between them either that the employers in the industry shall now make provision for their employees, or that, once the men are thus shovelled out of to the profiteers’ambit,theyshallneverbepermitted return to it. The opportunity, in short, is here for an attack upon the wage-system itself, and Labour should seize it. *** Failing some such revolutionary principle introduced n o w , at leastintoseriousdiscussion,wedonotsee, indeed, that the war will be of the slightest benefit to the, working classes as such. The governing classes, as we intend one day to make clear, have a great stake in the war. Victory will mean for them a practically open vista of powersuch as no class has hitherto dared to dream of. The employing and financial classes likewise will have new paradises of profit opened to them in the as for the proleevent of our national victory, But tariat, if theseotherclasses will notevenpromiseit anything, stilllessconcede it at once some newprivilege, during the war and while the issue is uncertain, we may be pretty sure that after the war it will obtain As in thecase of Conratherlessthanthisnothing. scription, now or neveris themomentforLabourto make its demands for emancipation with some hope of beingheard. The occasion isthemostfavourablefor revolutionary thought that ever wasin the history of the mind of Europe, world. Not only is themap,butthe beingrecast.Astonishingrevolutions are taking place everywhere the and more of them better. the We beseech the Labour leaders to be in the stream in which we all the rest of us struggling. are Militarism is, hope, doomed ; but only if its sister Industrialism is de- 3 stroyed with it. W a r andtheWage-Systemare inseparable. Now i s the moment to put an end to both. *** Current Cant. “Our conscience.”-“Evening News.” “Peace soon.”--“London Opinion.” “OXO at the front. Oxo gives strength and maintains it.”--“Evening News.” f necessary to dismiss Prince Louis o Battenberg from his office at the Admiralty as though he were a mere German waiter. But now, however, that our halfpenny King, Lord Northcliffe, has proved that he can make War Ministers and unmake Lords of the Admiralty by the power of his Press, not only should he straightway be appointed Premier and given the nominal as well as the actual control of national policy 2nd administration, but the campaign he has so powerfully begun for the purgation of ourpure-bred, magnanimousandcourageous nation of every naturalised and unnaturalised German should be carried out to the end. If Prince Louis of Battenberg can no more be trusted than Hans the baker, what should be thought of the occupants of our royal throne?Plainly if only Germandescent coupled with opportunities for receiving and transmitting inforto qualify mation of importance to our enemies is residents among u s forinternmentundersentry,our f Royal Family should be the first to be the objects o the newspaper hunt; it is sheer lunacy and anti-Britishism to leave them free ! As the “New Witness,’’ now fairly off its chump (to use language Mr. Cecil Chesterton is likely to understand), rightly remarks : “Our situation Disis such that we cannot afford to take any risks.” crimination even, thereis no timefor : theinnocent must suffer with the guilty ; panic knows no law. Under to Lord these distressing circumstances appeal we Northcliffe to saveusfromKingGeorgeandQueen Mary. To Olympia with them ! *** W e cannot conceive why it should have been thought “The War day by day. A ding-dong fight.”--“Times.” “There is everywhere a recoil from the hideous doctrine Cox. that physical force alone rules the world.”—HAROLD “A product of the Nietzsche doctrine-the Prince. ”-“T.P.’s Journal of Great Deeds. “ Crown “Princess Mary, Tommy’s ChristmasFairy.”--“Daily Graphic.” “A toil of coal for 2s. 6d.”--“Daily Express” ADVERT. “Santa Claus to go the into Mirror. ” firing line.”--“Daily “Words of might by Callisthenes.”-“Evening dard. ” Stan- “Be sure you take Iron JeIloids three times a day.”— “BritishWeekly.” f “We have been holding fast to the doctrines o Jesus Christ. . . .”--“British Weekly.” Once more, however, there is a reason these for things ! If our Press has started at shadows and done nothing butpursueshadowsthroughoutthewar,the explanation is not that its directors are hysterical idiots. As the Government, to the best of our belief, laughs in privata-with the Navy (as what man of sense does not !) at the very fears of invasion it nevertheless encourages the public to entertain, so our Press proprietors must, we think, be credited with policy rather than charged with poItroonery. And whatistheirpolicy?It is the difficult policy o runningwiththehareandhunting f with the hounds. A t the same time that they must keep or their readershotfooton thetrack of somevictim another for the purpose of their circulation, they must also for the sake of their advertisers keep them off the track of every scoundrel whose showing up might convict the Press o realhonesty.Are f there not enemies of England here in the country a thousand times more powerful, more malignant and more active than all the resident Germansputtogether? And while swindling contractors are fleecing ourrecruitsand monopolists o all kinds are bleedingeverynationalservice,isit f to be blethering aboutGerman decent forourPress waiters and joining in prayer with His Grace of Canterbury to lift the horrible curse of occasional drunkenness from the army o those possibly about to be shot ? I t f is not decent, and it is not meant t o bedecent. It is, to be. If it were however, profitable; and it is meant not the case; but if, on the contrary, it were the case that the exposure of the real traitors and not their concealment were profitable, we shouldnothavelongto wait before hearing the names of the fine old English gentlemen who, on the authority of the Command Headquarters a t Aldershot, have raised prices in the canteens between one and five hundredpercent. ; or of those all-British patriots who have been doing such a roaring trade in supplying our enemies with tea and coal ; or of those readers of Lord Northcliffe’s Press who are even now raisingthe price o wool forkhakiat f the same f moment that, with the connivance o some of our sweathg Government servants, they are substituting shoddy to increase their holding of wool. These names, we venture to say, are of more interest than the names of hotels that employ German waiters, Labour, if you like, is “Trade Unionism-organised now engaged inthegreat strike.”—ETHELBERT POGSON in the “Daily Citizen.” “King George pulled their pig-tails . . played a trick upon the Germans a hot night.”--“London Life.” .. . . “The ‘Westminster Gazette’ this week reproves the ‘Saturday Review.’ ”--“Saturday Review.” of Nature than like “The German’s courtesy usually looks less like an act a deliberate and politic condescension.”--“Saturday Review.” “The dead lie unburied, the wounded untended, and death is everywhere in air, on land, and on sea-yet, God is good . let us give thanks.”--“Toronto Christian Guardian.” .. “Lager beer in London.”—“Evening News,” “Mr. H. G. Wells on great men. A startling theory.’’ --“Globe.” “The Enemy’s stamps. Why collectors should leave them alone.”—FRED MELVILLE. “It is a glorious thing to be alive in the World to-day.” —THE BISHOP OF LONDON. “What of your German neighbour ? Remember, if you cannot fight in thefield, you can fight at home.”—“ Evening News. ” “What I seek in these rambling quests is the soul of f the Nation. . It is impossible to shirk the question o drink.”—ARNOLDWHITE. . “We are undoubtedly handicapped by our humanity in the war we arewaging against the modern Hun. Of course, from the point of view of Christianity v. Kultur we are doing the right thing.”--GEORGE R. SIMS “Papers like the ‘Daily Chronicle’ and the ‘Manchester Guardian’ are playing the German game.”--“Evening News.” “To help raise our thoughts to higher things, I would like such well-known hymns played and sung as ‘O God our Help in Ages Past,’ ‘Fight the Good Fight,’ ‘Onward Christian Soldiers,’ etc. , etc. All these could be included in the music of the cinemas.”—MRS. EUSTACE MILES. 4 Foreign By S. Verdad. Affairs. IT is now too late for u s to give advice to the Turks. Theyhavecommitted acts of waragainstRussia by bombarding undefended towns in the Black Sea; and, though this is a German method of conducting warfare rather than a Turkish one, the Turks will have to be held responsible fortheirownactions. As I triedto show last week, when answering some criticisms o Mr. f Pickthall’s, all the blame for the unfortunate Occurrences which led to Turkey’s support of Germany must not be We couldhave thrust upon Franceandthiscountry. accepted the offers made by the Porte to participate in theadministration o the Ottoman Empire by sending f representatives t o specified districts ; but Germany would not tolerate our doing so when the question was putbeforeher. Turkey was amicablydisposed to us ; but she did not desire our friendship, so much that she was prepared to quarrel with Germany about it. When peremptory orders were issued by Berlin to Constantinople fromtime totime theywere obeyed without a murmur. If the Young Turks chosen had to break definitely with Germany they could have done so without shedding the of a drop of blood. But Germany would tolerate no rival near the Sultan ; and the Turks preferred Potsdam. *** territory, but to the exploitation of it. It was intended to leavetheTurks to carry onsuch exploitation of mines, forests, etc., as they had been engaged in. It was not, of course, intended that all the politicalconcessionsgranted to ourenemiesshouldbe respected. Concessions of a purelycommercialorder would have beenleft ‘to the GermanandAustrian firms that had secured them; but purelypoliticalconcessionssuch as theBagdadRailway would have beendisposed o by f the Allies in accordance their interestswith own Turkey naturally retaining share her in such concessions. *** As Turkish sympathisers admit, I think, I have myself always been a friend of the Turkish people. With the Turkish people I have never been able to ,identify the YoungTurkparty,though Mr. Pickthalldoes so. (I mention Mr. Pickthall particularly because views his essentially represent the views of Turkish sympathisers generally). The pro-German party in Turkey has never properly represented the nation ; but, as we have seen, it has been sufficiently strong to influence and guide the policy of the Young Turk Committee. The Foreign Office Note,issued, atmidnightonSaturdaylast, details a number o offences of which the Turkish Governf ment has been guilty since the war began; but it tells us no more than we have seen in the papers. The offences complained of were so flagrant that they simply had to be mentionedin the Press ; theycould not be concealed. As we see, theTurkishGovernment itself drew up admirable enough rules for the use of a neutral naval Power; and then it forthwith violated all its own rules. The extended protection given to the “Goeben” andthe“Breslau”wasunquestionably a hostileact, and nobody believed that the vessels had beensold to Turkey.Atonetimeitappeared that they had been ; but the retention of the German crews could not be explained away. *** Since all our interests made it advisable that we should leave Turkey as she was, since the Turks themselveshad full assurancesonthispoint, why didthe Porte commit such a shameless act of war as the bombardment of undefended towns without a declaration of hostilities? Because, as even Turkish sympathisers must admit, German influences in the Turkish Governmentweretoostrong tobecounteracted.Baron von Wangenheim,theGermanAmbassador at Constantinople, wasconsulted at nearlyalltherecentCabinet meetings. is mere This not idle gossip—it is a fact known to every Ambassador and Minister in Constantinople, andithaseven beenmentionedinthepapers here. Enver Pasha has always been German in his sympathies, and so have most o his colleagues, though not f so stronglyas he. When Germany gavethe word to move, the Turks moved; and it is not very difficult to see why the order to move was given. * * * As I assured Mr. Pickthall and his friends in a previous article, as the Young Turks themselves knew, and as theForeign Office statement definitely asserts,the Allies never contemplated handing Constantinople over to Russia if Turkey had remained neutral during this war. ThatRussia should reach Constantinople is no desire o ours ;and even Russiaherself is not prepared to f g o there at present. I t is sometimes said by friends o f Turkey in Western Europe that a declaration o war by f the Porte was only to be expected. The Turks, so the argument runs, knew that they would be driven out of Europe sooner or later; but they believed that aGermanvictory would mean for them ‘ a longer period of occupancy Constantinople the in than victory of the Allied Powers. This argument is unsound. The Turks themselves were definitely told at the outset that “ if Turkey remained neutral her independence and integrity would be respected during the war and in the terms of peace.” W h a t could have been explicit? more The diplomatic interests o the Allied Powers themselves f made itdesirablethatthepossessions o Turkey, in f Europe or out of it, should remain exactly as they were before the war. I refernot merely to actual landed Itwas on FridaylastthattheTurkish fleet bombarded .Novorossisk and Theodosia ; and only two days previously the German Government had been obliged to announce officially that its troops inPolandhad been heavily defeated by the Russian army. The defeat was much more severe the than Germans admitted-that fact might have been taken for granted even if we had not had very a detailed statement Petrograd. from Further, a series of attacks on the line to Calais had failed, and nearly the whole of the British Expeditionary Force was in Belgium, rendering the best possible serviceagainsttheGermans.Clearly,it would beto the advantage of the enemy to disconcert both Russia and England at the same time; and the Turkish army and navy, which had been held in readiness for this purpose, were set at work. Most of us who have dealings with official circlesinLondon knewtwomonthsago that large Turkish forces, under the command of German officers, were being moved from Damascus to pointsfavourablefor anattackonEgypt;anditis announced as I write that Turkish cavalry have reached Akaba. A natural respect for the proper duties of the Censor led us to keep this information to ourselves. As for the Egyptian army, it ought t o be said, Censor or no Censor, that the disparity between our defence forces in Egypt and the forces to be opposed t o them is very great. *** Even Germans the the and Turks, however, can hardlyhopethatnootherPowers will nowinterfere. Italy has been on the verge of a revolution for two or three weeks because the Government preferred to stay out o the great conflict; but Turkey’s move may affect f Italy’s interests in Northern and Eastern Africa t o such an extent further that neutrality may be impossible. Again,Greece andRoumania may be invited to take part on behalf of the Allies. The recent attitude of Bulgaria not has been altogether satisfactory. She has issued various declarations of neutrality, while permitting German soldiers and sailors to cross her territory on their .way to join the Turco-German army and navy ; and she has also permitted munitions of war to besentfromGermanyandAustria to Turkey.These are acts of war if the Allies care t o regard them in that light. Indeed, the influential “Novoye Vremya” has 5 told the Bulgarian Government, almost in so many words, to choose between the’Allies and Germany. men weactuallyhave in camp. The energies of our officers and trained non-commissioned officers are overtaxed as it is ; and if our new army were much larger it would develop into a leaderless mob. Apart from that fact, our foreign friend must not forget the Navy. Without the British Fleet both our powerful Allies would have been more than harassed since the first week of the French is Fleet chasing in August. Most cruisers in the Atlantic or guarding the Mediterranean ; the Russian Fleet deal can with the German Baltic squadron.Buthow much would noteachPowerhave suffered if our Navy had not locked up the greater part of the German Fleet in the Kiel Canal and thereabouts? * * * I t should not be hastily taken for granted that Bulgaria is our enemy, or intends to be, merely because she has committed the acts of war referred to above. As I have said before, Bulgariagainedverylittle in consequence o the Balkan war ; and much less proportionf ately than any of her partners in theLeague. Greece was able to secure what is practically Bulgarian territory; and theterritory so acquired by Greece has been “recognised” by EnglandandFrance.TheBulgarian people are tired of fighting and of losing money ; and if Bulgaria participated in this, war I believe she would d o so very unwillingly and only under compulsion. The sympathies of the Bulgarian people are beyond all doubt on the side of the Triple Entente; but King Ferdinand and his Court are as undoubtedly under the influence of Germany. In spite of that, the chief aim of the King and of the present Government is to see that the country recovers as successfully and as rapidly a s possible from the effects of the recent wars against Turkey and Servia. Another campaign would greatly retard such a recovery. * * * Military Notes. B y Romney. What will happen toTurkeynowis a perplexing matter. It is not likely,despite thebreach of neutrality, that Russia will elect to g o to Constantinople, though she will certainly get there soonerthan would have been possible had Turkey minded her own business. I t ismore likely that Eastern Turkey will suffer than Western Turkey ; and this is a view which I shall strongly urge in the proper quarter when the time comes. If the are Turks permitted to remain in Europe, the difficult questionofthefuture ownership o Constantinople will be shelved for many years. f The Russians, on the other hand, should be able to obtain very satisfactory “ compensations ” in Armenia-the t o come Russian annexation of Armeniawascertain soon, war ornowar. As for ourselves,wemight do f worse than place the Sheik o Koweit under our suzerainty-he is atpresent responsible to Turkey. O r we might annex a strip of land at the Persian Gulf terminus! of the Bagdad l i n e a n d leave it to be administered by the Government of Bombay. There is the precedent of Aden for ourguidance in this matter. W e have all along intended to see that the railway is properlyadministered by an international board, with ourselves in supreme control of the last two hundred miles of it. AT the beginning of this war the W a r Office, faced with the necessity of “growinganarmy,”had to decide whether the newly raisedmenshouldbe incorporated, at any rate to some extent, in the Territorial Force, or whether they should be gathered into what would be to all intents and purposes a new army, connected with the existing Regular organisation by the link of names and numbers,andto a certainextent by thetransfer o f cadres,butenlisted only for thewarandtobe dis-. banded attheend of it. They chose-unwisely, as I think-the latter course, and as a result, the Territorials having practically volunteered all for active service, we have two Armies side by side for foreign service, of which each has defects that could only have been remedied by amalgamationwiththe other-and now, alas ! can hardly be remedied at all. * * * * * * There may be badreportsfromEgypt at first; but theyneed not alarm us. It is understood that Japan is prepared to lend us a large force of troops for service in Egypt, with a fleet to convoy them if necessary. I wish to beemphasised, because this point aboutbadnews the lower-class journals have already made some people hysterical enough. Indeed, mania spread the has to papers that ought to know better. The “ Morning Post,” for instance, published a few days ago a letter from a Frenchman, signed “un ami sincère.” The gist of the thing that were supplying was we not men enough for the war, and that whereas in Francë and the other‘countrieseverybody was fighting, young men of military age could still be seen walking about on this side. Now, this cry of “more men,” while right enough up to a limited extent, must not be overdone. TheBritish Army in recent years has suffered from a shortage of officers. The aristocratic class, whichstill supplies officers but used to supply more, h a s become poorer as plutocrats merchants the and have grown wealthier; and this class now finds it economically impossible to send its sons into a professionthepay of which remains to-day exactly what it was heaven knows how manygenerationsago.Thereareotherreasons, too; and “Romney” has often told us about them.At present we are finding it next to impossible to train the Speaking generally, and making every allowance for exceptional units, we may say that the Territorial Force consists of a pretty good officer corps, but inferior men ; whilst “Kitchener’s Army,” as it is called, contains the very bestfightingmaterial in itsranks,butis hopelesslyhandicapped by lack of officers. The defects of the Territorials in men were remarked long before the beginning of thewar. As a whole, the men aretoo young, apart and, from the who that, man joins in peace time for any one of a dozen reasons, from a wish to wear a gaudy uniform to a wish to enjoy a fortnight’s healthyholidaya year, is obviouslyless good material than the man who comes forward after war has broken of immediate fighting before his out with the prospect eyes. On the other hand, the Territorial officer, though much maligned, has always enjoyed a certain real training in his job-in the worst cases he has the foundations of a military education-whilst theyoung men from the universitywhoformthebulk of Kitchener’s officers have many of them neverseen a rifle at close quarters. natural The course would therefore have been to stiffen the Territorial ranks by the infusion of, say, 25 percent. of the new, good recruits ; the same result would have been reached had the Territorials been allowed to recruit immediately after the outbreak of war (whichtheywere not). This, indeed, was what everyone acquainted the with Territorial Force was counting on to make it a reality. As it was, Territorial units were actually forbidden recruit to whilst “Kitchener’sArmy”wasstill in need of men. One could understand this if it was not intended to use the Terri: t h e W a r Office wouldnaturally torialForceabroad notdesirethebest of recruits tobe absorbed by a force that was only to be employed in the very remote Army contingency of an invasion.ButtheTerritorial was asked to volunteer for the front, and the bulk of itdid so, andwasfurthermorepromisedthattothe frontitshouldgobeforeKitchener’s Army. So that the whole affair remains inexplicable. * * * The mistake could remedied, be even at this last 6 moment; by a transfer of a proportion of the best of “Kitchener’s’’ recruits to those Territorial units which are actually destined for front. the This, however, will probably not be done. Meanwhile, a larger proportion than necessary of our secondline troops is being retained in England to quiet the fears of various rich and cowardly persons whom the absurd German threat of invasion on a seriousscale via Calaishasscared into such pusillanimous representations-as the Germansintended it should. For it need not be said that thenumerousaccounts of Germanplans which have just been publishedinGermany andneutralcountries are not a gratuitous present of his secrets by a generous foe, solicitous lest we should be taken by surprise and unable to putup a satisfactory fight. They are published with the sole view of scaring idiots in England ; and the Censor, who spends such a lot of time preventing us from finding out which regiment stormed a trench near Paris a couple of months ago, would be less of a damnedfoolthanheis if herecognised the fact and stoppedtheir publication. If theGermanscanscare a few ignorantand overfed capitalistsinto a sufficient fright, they will have accomplished a worthy task, for the French having no further reserves to train, it is our second line troops who will be the deciding factor in the west, andnothing will suitGermanybetterthanfor them to be kept in England because some chickenheartedfatheadisafraidlestthePrussianscomeand eat him in the night. Danger ! IF ourmoralistsandmaniacs a r e to be believed, we have all becomefollowers of Nietzsche to this extent, God only knows what that we are livingdangerously. has been averted by the action of the police towards enemy aliens; and what God only knows no man can tell. The, danger from a raid of Zeppelins has lowered f the lights of London and increased the number o street accidents;but Mr.Charles C. Turner,writinginthe f cloud “Observer” o November I , suggeststhatthis He speaks of the “success o the f has a silverlining. Zeppelin scare”not onlyin increasing the amount of business done by underwriters, but in raising enormously the percentage charged for insurance. “It has a direct conbeen suggested,” he says, “that there is nectionbetween thepresentZeppelinscareandthose parties whose business has been increased by it ” ; but to anybody at a time withoutimputingbasemotives when all the virtues are being exercised on our side, it a remarkable difference must be admitted that there is between Mr. Turner’s estimate of the risk and the rates charged by theunderwriters. He suggests that “even if a fleet of twenty Zeppelins or more came over and a gooddeal of damage,the droppedbombsanddid chance of any particular building being hit would be so small that sixpence per cent. ought to coverit.” The “Daily News” seems to hold the opinion that even this estimateisexcessive,foritisofferingfreeinsurance a againstdamagedonebyZeppelins.However,itis poor Zeppelin scarethatdoesnot benefit the underwriters; and we can, if we like to do so, estimate our danger by the fact that the underwriters are receiving 3s. 6d. to 5s. per cent. for insurance. Even Westminster Abbey has been insured for £151,000, a t a rate of 5s. per cent. ; and God will see to it that only the premium is paid. the Danger ! It besets us everywhere. Itlurksin Belgian lager beer (made, we are told, in Camden Town) which we are not allowed to drink after ten o’clock bes cause the soldiers’ wives have more money than i usual. It is present in the public-houses that are open, f in the night-clubs that are shut, in the news o German defeat that we are allowed to read, and in the news of English defeat that the Americans have notbeen allowed to read. We are beset about dangers, with and of surety we can find none. The cause o temperance has f been endangered by the sending of 150,000 gallons o f rum to the troops in France; and every member of the United Kingdom Alliance is quite sure that our troops are being forcibly fed with rum by a brutal Government The untilthey are in a state o f helplessintoxication. behaviour of our girls in the vicinity of camps has, of f course,beenscandalous;and the wives o the Archf the of Rochesterand bishop o Canterbury, Bishops Southwark, have issued an appeal for better behaviour. The girls are exhorted to work for the soldiers, to pray for them, to expect them to be “steady and brave and good men” ; but on no account to make love to them. The moral danger is always an interior, not an exterior, danger; and even the German invaders (if ever we are invadedbytheGermans) will appreciate the value of these exhortations. But we never quite realised how much danger we (and, moreparticularly,our girls) werein until the Bishop of London enlightened us in the “Daily News” of October 30. The selling of newspapershaslong been regarded as undesirable employment by those people who are concerned industrial about efficiency; but the * * * A Germaninvasion from the Belgian coast is about as likely as an invasionfromGreenland,andthat, as Mr. Belloc has observed, for the good and all-sufficient reason that, even if the enemy take Calais, there will be no transports in the port and it will be impossible A plausible suggestion, made by toget them there. Mr. F. T. Jane,isthat a fewhundred motor-cyclists may be conveyed to our shores in submarines and turned loose to do all the damage they can ; but that is not the sort of thing one keeps acouple of hundred thousand allow the men at home to guard against. Why, then, “Daily Mail” toscarethe public with its ridiculous hints o invasion? Up to date theCensor has made a f fool of himself : but he can retrieve his reputation and perform a lasting service to his country in one simple way. Let him impound, prohibit, generally and confiscate the “Daily Mail,” the “Mirror,” “ Times,” “ Forget-me-not,” “ EveningNews,”“BigBudget,” andanyother similar publications, thereby reducing LordNorthcliffe to t h e gutter he arose from, and delivering the country of an evil pest. * * * Thiscountryhas received onenastysurprisefrom South Africa. Before thewarisoveritmay receive another-from America. Corporal Peter Fanning’s letter in last week’s NEW AGE has called our attention to the anti-English spirit which exists in what we are informed to be “God’s own country,” and our unhappy entanglement with the Japanese has given only too good reason for it. America has shown her hostility in many ways-notably the refusal to allow our right to search her ships for contraband upon their voyages to neutral ports. Fear o Americandispleasure has already comf pelled us to withdraw the embargo on cotton. It may do more still. And thisiswhatis known as “Hands across the sea” ? METAMORPHOSIS. Once gleamed this earth in splendourclear and bright, Bathed in a glittering sea of burnished light, And o’er the dewy hills, with lightsome tread, Danced a young godwithvine leaves on his head; When from the east a twilight dank and grey Crept, and i n fear the young god fled away, And, o’er the gloom-environ’d earth forlorn, Reeled a manmortal ’neath his crown of thorn. EDWARD MOORE. 7 “moral danger” attaching to it is, suppose, we an original discovery of the Bishop o London. We have f become familiar with the sight o Suffragettes at street f corners, offering for sale “Votes for Women” or “The Common Cause,” which no one seemed to buy ; but the thought that theywerethereby endangering their immortal souls never occurred to us. Perhaps they were not; for in the particular case referred to by the Bishop of London, it is definitely stated that the girls are mostly for charity attractive. Attractive selling girls papers are exposed to such “gravemoraldanger”.thatthe Bishop of London has to appeal to the London Council for the Promotion of Public Morality for an expression of opinion on the subject. We are not quite sure whether the danger arises from the depravity of our men or the seductiveness o our f girls; indeed, in a time of peace, we should have been inclined to pooh-pooh the suggestion of moral danger. But war makes us more alert;that peculiar English phrase : “ I am afraid” : takes on new shades of meaning, and although we ourselves are not yet awareof the f nature o this moral danger, yet we can appreciate and envy thesleuth-houndinstinct that made it known to the Bishop o London. H e sniffs moral danger ; we may f say that no man in England has a keener scent for it, unless itis a Harmsworthjournalistinsearch of a sensation. But the fact that the Bishop of London has f these vague, Wordsworthian intimations o immorality proves theextent of theGerman menace. W e could understand that representative our institutions were ; we endangered, because Parliament prorogued was could understand that our free Press was endangered, because a censorship was established ; we could understand that rent, interest, and profits were endangered, because a moratorium was declared ; but that the virtue of our English girls should be jeopardised by the war was aconsequence not so obvious. It had passed into a proverb that stronger than the chalk cliffs of Dover, more closely encircling than the girdle of the sea, were to learnthat the moral defencesof our virgins; and they are now endangered selling by newspapers to Englishmen can only add fuel to the flame of our resentment against Germany. Thismilitaristicmenace,this moral leprosy, must be stamped out, id we all have to Become total abstainers to do it. But we cannot all go to the wars, and those who remain in this country must take advantage of the opportunity to makemoralitymoreoppressive. I t is clear that these girls must not be allowed to sell newspapers ; but the grave moral danger is not removed by this prohibition. Attractivegirlsarefrequentlyseenwalking in the darkened streets of London, and the still more darkened streets. of the suburbs ; they are to be seen riding in ourdarkenedomnibusesandourstillmore darkened trams.The‘Bibledeclaresthat“men. love darkness rather light, than because deeds their are f evil” ; and the intimation o the Bishop of London has set us shuddering for the moral welfare of these girls. We cannot ask the authorities to raise the lights, because itis asserted that defence against aerial attack necessitates this saving of artificial light ; but the plight of these poor, dear girls demands some consideration. The policy of exclusion has already been suggested, by no less an authority than a London magistrate, in connection with soldiers’ wives and public-houses ; we must extend it to the case sf these girls who are not to be allowed to sell newspapers.Theymustbe allowed to walk in our streets only in squads of twenty, under the control of a female police officer ; they must be allowed to ride in reserved tramcars and omnibuses, with female drivers and conductors; and their communion with our 12 gallant defenders must limited be to prayer “at o’clock,’’ when, we are told by the wives of the Bishops, “thesoldiersandsailors know we are stopping for a minute wherever we are to say one prayer for them.’’ Thus only can the virtue of our ~English girls be made of the Gerimpregnable;and the grave moral danger man assault on our institutions be averted. Freedom in the Guild. By G. D. I. H. Cole. Introductory. THE Collectivist’sfirstline of attackupontheGuild system is ,usually, in form at least, made in the interests of the consumer. He seeks to show thatthe Guild would inevitably “ exploit the community.” But,defeated on this point, he goes on to appeal to the producers themselves, and asks whether the Guild system would in fact secure greater freedom for the individual worker. Modern methods of production, he declares, are so intenselycomplicated and on so large a scale that it is impossible to restore the individual freedom of the craftsman. That being so, it matters not, from the point of view of freedom, how industry is organised : the only wise course is to concentrate on securing the greatest efficiency o productionandthebest f possible distribution of the product.Sinceneitherundercapitalism,norunder Collectivism, norunder a gigantic system of National Guilds, can the individual be free, why botheranylonger a b u t freedom, at any rate in the industrial sphere? That is, I believe, a fair statement of the Collectivist it on two fallacies. It is conargument : and rests tended, that first, Collectivism, which is the trust system in excelsis, makes for productive efficiency, and secondly, thatthesystem of National Guilds cannot I shall with two deal these but be bureaucratic. points in turn : but my real concern is with the second, because I believe that it rests on a complete misconception of the system of industrial organisation Guild Socialists desire. The first argument rests on the doublefallacy that self-government has nothing to dowith efficiency and that freedom has nothing to do withself-government. f This is a denial o the wholephilosophy of all good Guildsmen. It is against this very view that their main attack upon Collectivism is directed. The key to real efficiency is self-government; and any system that is not onlyservile, is not baseduponself-government but also inefficient. just as even labour the of the wage-slave is better than the labour of the chattel-slave, so, and a thousand times more so, will the labour of the free man be better than either. “ That may be so,” the Collectivist will answer, “but under modern conditions freedom is out of the question. With machine production, man must be reduced to the position of a cog in the wheel. Let us work, then, for Collectivism, in order that, by paying good wages, we may secure at least the highest mechanical efficiency.” Such an argument not only ignores the humanity of labour, but also totally misconceives the nature of freedom. Freedomisnot simply theabsence o restraint; f it assumes a higher form when it becomes self-government. A man is not free in himself while allows he himself to remain at the mercy of every idle whim : he is free when hegovernshis own life according to a dominantpurposeorsystem o purposes. Injustthe f is no same way, man in Society is not free where there law ; he is most free where he co-operates best with his equals in themaking of laws.Overandoveragain, Socialistshave used thisargument in answertothe anarchicalindividualism o Herbert Spencer ; yetthey f Guild Socialism have been thefirst to directagainst what is, after all, only a repetition of the most palpable fallacy of Individualism.Theycontendthatitmatters whether a man governs himself politically or not; but n o less in the inthey refuse to admit that it matters dustrial sphere. A hundred years ago, it was a theory almost generallyaccepted that democracy,good as it might be for the small City State, could not be applied to the great 8 NationState.Rousseauhimself,thefather o modern f n democratic idealism, expressed this view i the “ Social Contract,” and it was held in his time equally by philosophers of themostdiverse schools. Yet now political democracy o a sort is applied to thegovernance f even of the largest States, and the surviving exponents of autocracy no longer seek to base their case on the size of the modern State. I t is generally admitted that, however great a community may be, theindividual is more free under a democratic than under an autocratic in system. And his freedom is seen to lie less the than the o selff absence of restraint in realisation government. The view of Rousseau and his generation was doubtless largely due to the fact that the possibilities of local and sectional self-government had not in his time been appreciated. To the application of these methods of decentralisation I shall come, in my next article, in dealing with the second fallacy behind the Collectivist’s of argument. I wishnow to speakoftheapplication the principle of self-government to industry in its most general form. That communityismostfreein which all the individualshavethegreatestshare in thegovernment of their common life. In every struggle liberty, for the enslaved have always demanded, asan essentialpreself-government, right the to choose liminary to all their own rulers. This applies in industry no less than in politics. While the citizen has King his his and Parliament imposed on himindependently of his will, hecannotbe free. Similarly, while the workmanhas hisforemenandhis managers set over himby an exuse him, ternal authority, then, however kindly they hehasnot freedom. Hemust claim, as a necessary step on theroadtoindustrialemancipation,theright To denythisis to adopt to choose hisownleaders. towardsindustrial democracyexactly the attitude that the defenders of autocracy or aristocracy adopt towards political democracy. The reception of the Guild idea among Socialists has shown that Socialism hasforgotten its democracy. In politicalself-governmentitseesnothingmorethana to save the convenient practice of “counting heads trouble of breakingthem.’’ It regards government as essentiallymechanism, a designed with the object of securing mechanical efficiency ; it does not see that the f is a moral problem, and problem o self-government that the task of social organisation is that of expressing human ‘will. Its theory is inhuman, because it neglects f will, which is the measure o human values. The Guild Socialist approaches the problem in a more philosophicspirit. H e desiresnot merely to provide a mechanism forthemoreequaldistribution ofmaterial commodities ; hewishesalso,andmoreintensely, to change the moral basis of Society, and to make it everywhereexpress the personality of those who composeit. H e seeks,not only politics; in but inevery department o life, togivefreeplay f to the conscious will of the individual. Admitting the failure of political democracy to achieve all that its pioneers promised, he refuses to be disillusioned, or to give up his belief in the ideal for which theystrove. Behind thefailure of actual political democracieshiseyes are keenenough to descry the eternal rightness of democracy itself ; and his sharp wits enough to understand why we have failedinapplying it. W e haveerredbecause we have of events, we had too little faith : driven by the logic havepressedfor democracy in thepolitical.domain, but we have regarded still it mainly as a means of securingcertainmaterial ends. W e haveneverreally believed in democracy ; for, if we had, we should have tried to apply it, not topolitics alone, but to every aspect of human life. W e shouldnot have been democrats in politics and autocrats industry in : we should have stood for self-government all round. Democracy rests essentially on a trust in human nature. Itasserts, if itassertsanything,thatmanis fit t o governhimself. Yet everycriticismpassedupon the Guild system by Collectivists, who are loud in their lip-service ta the democratic principle, reveals that they of human nature and are fundamentally distrustful of theworker, humancapacity.Theyadmittheright as a citizen, to a vote in the choice of his political rulers; but theyrefuse to the same man the right to elect his industrial rulers. The contradiction is flagrant : the explanation o f it is discreditable. so Political democracy is accepted because it has largely failed : it is the very fact that it has not made effective the will of the individual citizen has that caused the opposition to it to die down. The fear of many of those who oppose industrial democracy is that it wouldbe effective, that the individual would at last come to his own, and that, in learning to control his own industry, he would learn also to control the political machine. Thedayon which helearntthat would certainlybe a black dayforthebureaucraticjugglers in human Jives whom we still call statesmen—or sometimes New Statesmen. Collectivists may take their choice : they are knaves, who hate freedom, or they are fools, who do not know whatfreedommeans, o r they a r e a bit of both.The at all ; they are divorced by knaves are not Socialists their whale theory of life from the democratic idea that is essential to all true Socialism. The fools may become Socialists if they get a philosophy : if; ceasing to think of socialOrganisationas a meremechanism and of self-government merely as a means, try they for the basis on which themselves to understand moral Socialism rests. If they dothat, theycannotbut realise that political democracy by itself is useless and that industrial democracy is its essential foundation, becauseis expression itthe of the same principle in the Collectivist another sphere. They will see that theory is built upon distrust, and, if they are good men, they will reject it on that ground alone. the British mind that It is a view deeplyrootedin most wholesome. In the nastiest medicines are the the same way, we have been too ready to believe that o social organisation will f the most nauseating system be themost efficient. How manySocialists of the old sort really believe in their hearts that Collectivism would lead to a system of production more efficient, in the capitalistic sense, that have than we now? The fact that they hasten to advance against GuildSocialism the very arguments that Anti-Socialists have always urged,with at leastequaljustice,againstthemselves, as proves that theyhavealwaysdoubted.Theyreject absurdtheGuildsman’sargumentthat a goodsystem of production demands good men, and that a man canfree. not be good, as a maker or producer, unless he is Collectivism is the “doubting Thomas’’ of the Socialist faith ; there is but a veneer of humanitarianism over its belief in the mid-Victorianheresy of original sin. Upon such a gloomy gospel of despair, no great Society can be built. And, after all, if men are like that, isit worth while to build anything? PROPERTIUS III. 24. What seemed Faith’s self, yet false is all thy fair, And blind the eyes that made thee proud with gazing ; The crowns I gave ! t o thee- that canst not bear To owe thy fame to this thy poet’s praising. Oft have I sung thy beauty’s mingled grace: A Cynthia there that wasnotCynthia viewing; I called the dawn less rosy than thy face, All Art’s triumphant white thy cheek imbuing. Sage counsel could not turn my course aside, Nor wizard spell constrain the sea to lave me ; Helpless I burned on Love’s fierce altar tied, With hands fast bound that could not stir to save me. But see my pennon’d bark the haven greeting, The quicksands crossed, the anchor safely cast ; My wounds are healed, and from the wide wave’s beating Weary I come to wisdom at the last. Come, Peace of Mind, if worship thee may move, T o thee I vow the prayers of Jove. A. E. WATTS unheard 9 The Arab Question. in theYemen,severally, as “the Arab Question.” movements are only o temporaryand local f importance. The overwhelming majority of the Arab races being Mohammedan, one should not, when thinkingof the future o those races, attach much weight to f tendencies which are to be observed in Christians only ; and sporadic revolts among the Arab tribes are equally negligible in this connection. Such Arab tribes remain Mohammedan, and, while opposed to the local authorities, still revere the Caliphate. The Muslim world today, in spite of all that has been done to confound and dismember it, is more coherent than some theorists imagine. And the sole inducement which could make a large proportion of the Muslim subjects c the Porte, f however ,wretched their condition, secede from Turkey of their own accord, or willingly accept a foreign yoke, would be the conviction thatthecourse which they were taking tended to the advantage, ultimateor immediate,of Islâm as a whole. Now, at the time of the Turkish retreat to the Chatalja lines, when exaggerated reports of the collapse o theOttomanEmpirecame f through Europeanagencies,some influential Mohammedans of Syria, even of Damascus, expressed a wish that their landshould be annexed to Egypt; and in Mesopotamia and Northern Arabia the same desire was manifested by a section of the chiefs and notables. These “Anglophils” (I use the word satirically) were nowhere in a majority;but theirexistence andtheir prominence a t such a moment in so many different regions of the Arab world suggest a widespread movementsuch as for twentyyears past I have known to exist. There are people who are ready to ascribethis movement to the love of our “ beaux yeux,’’ or to sheer admiration for “the splendid work which we have done in Egypt.” Thatis a self-complacent view I cannot I HAVE heard people talk of the Gallophile agitation among the Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic natives of Syria,of the periodical unrest in Mesopotamia and But such take. In the years 1894-6, was in Syria, “ living native,” I as, the English call it. I can remember hearing Muslim Arabs talking more than once of what would happen on the downfall of the Turks. They looked to Egypt, remembering the conquests of Mehemed Ali, and the gospel of an Arab Empire under the lord of Egypt which Ibrahim Pasha preached in PalestineandSyria. That gospel, I gathered,was stillbeingpreached in secret by missionaries sentfromEgypt. It astonished me at that early age, when I had faith in all things English, to hear those Arabs ascribe the recent material prosperity of Egypt, not to England, but to the dynasty of MehemedAli. England, in theirprojects,figured as a tool. The British occupation was an incident which could be used for their advantage, a step towards the Arab Empire which they had in view. If hosts o f warlike Arabs came together, it would not be long before they made an end of it. In the meanwhile they would share in the prosperity of Egypt.On every occasion when such views were uttered in my presence, they aroused dissension in someotherlisteners. The proTurk element among Syrian Muslims was at that time stronger thanthepro-Egyptian,and much more respectable. And even the apostles of an Arab Empire were careful, when mentioning the possible downfall of the Turks, to add : “which God forbid.” I gathered then and subsequently that the Sherîf of Mecca was to be thespiritual head of the reconstituted realm of El It Islâm the Khedive of Egypt the temporal head. was therefore with surprise and some amusement that one Friday in May, 1907,being in one o the principal f towns of the Nile Delta, I listened to a sermon from a “ learned ” sheykh, in which he declared the Khedive Abbâs II to be the true Khalîfeh, or Successor of the Prophet,and called on all Mohammedans toriseand slay the English for his sake. I do not remember that any of his hearers seemed particularly impressed. Egyptians not do generally seek the meaning of a sermon preached above the wooden sword. They merely revel in a sound of holy words. But I found that sermon very interesting. Similar pious discourses were delivered in other places about that time. Some native Egyptians warned the British authorities that they were dangerous; but, when the “learned” sheykh, who, as a licensed preacher,wassubsidised by theGovernment, heard the charge against him, he denied it with great indignation, declaring that he preached morality alone, and always, in hissermons,praised the English. He is still, I believe, in receipt of his Government subsidy, and no doubt fancies he deceived the British rulers. Thatpropaganda,testedfor a few months, failed completely. Few indeed were the Mohammedans-at any rate in Egypt-who could bear the thought of the Khedive as Caliph. There followed interviews with the Sherîf of Mecca, andthe former propaganda was resumed. It has gained adherents among the upper class of Muslims in all the Arab provinces of Turkey ; has even made some way among the Arab Christians. And, if the Turkish Empire really fell, I have no doubt but that it would soon be accepted by the entire Muslim population of those provinces, and even of Egypt, where a t presentitis most unpopular. If Turkey fell, the Power from which the Khedive has derived authority, the only Power to which heowesallegiance,the only Power which could of right depose him, would be gone. H e would be left as the sole representative and relic of the last great independent Muslim Power, and as such would become, automatically, endeared to the hearts of his own people and o Muslims everywhere. f If the English who havemade him the richest individual in the Near East, and one of the richest individuals in the world, should ever in the future-after the disappearance of the Turkish suzerainty and the Turkish Powerventure to depose him, it would cause much horror and rebellious feeling, which would not be the case at present if the Turks—or the English with the sanction of the Turks-reduced hisdignity. And he andhis descendants would become the hope of El Islâm a t once. That f is why, at the time of the trial o Colonel Abdul Azîz el Masri in Constantinople, the Egyptian Press, controlled by the Khedivial Court, declared the readiness o f Egypt to throw off the Turkish suzerainty. Now note the views of certain influential British politicians-statesmen, I suppose, by courtesy.Theysay : “ W e will divide up Turkey, and transfer the Caliphate to Mecca.” The British share of Turkey would, I have of Mesopobeen credibly informed, be theArabpart tamia, a strip of Southern Syria and a protectorate o f all Arabia-a tremendousbite ! Thus a multitude of warlike Arabs would be broughttogether under the same yoke with Egypt in circumstances the most irritating to the Muslims that can be imagined; and at the f life and same time the head and centre o Islamic thought would be removed from a progressive Muslim country near to Europe to a Muslim country the reverse o civilised. To anyone who, like myself, regards ref ligious fanaticism, whether of Christian or Muslim, as the mostinhuman vice or passion which can animate humanity, and longs to see it banished from the world, the prospect is not pleasing. It has nodoubt its abstract beauty for those minds whose pleasure is to reconstruct the world without regard for the psychology of its inhabitants.But if our politicians thinkitis their own device, they are mistaken. The project is not English ; it is pure Egyptian, and I have known o its existence f since my nineteenth year. MARMADUKE PICKTHALL. IQ The Melting of the Glacier. FROM rich harvest of journalistic fantasies garnered the during recent weeks it would be difficult to ascertain precisely how Ireland stands in thepresent European crisis. At one moment we hear that recruiting for the at others, English Army is progressing favourably; that the call toarmshas in a great measurefailed. Scarcely have we recovered from the shock of seeing Mr. John Redmond in a new imperialistic rôle, than we learn that it is only Ulster which is ready to fight for the King she was recently armed to defy. Then we are reminded of therumourthat Germany counted upon civil war in Ireland as an obstacle to theinterference of England with thetriumphalprogress o Prussian f f culture. In a mood o half conviction one asks whether, after all, there was not some real basis for the German calculation. What is the precise significance of these conflicting reports as to Ireland’s attitude in the war? I t would certainly require a memory much longer than that of the oldest inhabitant to recollect a previous instance where England and Ireland were, as at present, practically united in opposition to a common f o e . In spite of the resolutions passed with becoming vehemence by ardent Gaels, safely separated by the Atlantic Ocean from the scene of danger, there can be little doubt that Irish opinion-as distincthyphenated from Irish opinion-favours the cause of the Allies in the present war. Even were the people themselves not naturally f sceptical o the benefits of a militarist administration, having sufficiently experienced the rigours o a Governf ment which, by comparison, appears positively philanthropic, even were they convinced o the identity of f English and Prussian methods, the habit of obedience, the old allegiance, would inevitably have induced in them some echo of the enthusiasm of the Nationalist politicians for the Empire whose existence is threatened. Ireland has so long submitted to the arbitrary divisions imposed by theprimitivetest o Orangeand Green, f f that it is sufficient for the high priests o the respective political creeds to call upon the faithful, to ensure submission. The conditions which make the expression of Irish opinion a mechanical processare, of course, simply those arising from the fact that no question is o considered, except in s far as it bears upon the Home Rule issue. Whether it be the appointment of a public f officer, or the production o a play, two parties are at once called into being by the simple expedient o identif fying the man o r the drama with religion and politics. “ Are you a Unionist or a Nationalist, a Protestant or aCatholic?” Once they are faced with thesequeries they must necessarily fall back into one or other camp, and in the attempt to muster their respective forces, the antagonists sight lose of fundamentals, the and decision goes to him who hasmost successfully massed his men about him. Heretofore, when the familiar standardshave been raised, and the groupings have taken place around them, the resulthas been that amajoritystood opposed to England, irrespective o the intrinsic merits of’ case. f the O n this occasion however, thepassing of the Home Rule Bill removed one of the magic devices fromthe Nationalist flag, and in the blankspace an Imperial theme was embroidered for the first time. Evidence is notwanting, itistrue,to indicate thatthe circumf so clear stances o this transformation were not quite and satisfactory as at first appeared., The Bill, though signed, is far from being the accomplished fact it ought to be. There is no reason why Irishmen should not govern Ireland while England is at war, and the postponement of the occasion to exercise a right now ostensibly conceded, is a matter of some embittered comment. But, in the main, there is a disposition to be unjustifiably optimistic, to believe-, that is to say, in the good intentions of the English Government, and to .act, accordingly, in goodfaith.Whetherit will ultimately be found that Ireland has been duped once again remains a conjecture, in which pessimism would, by past experience, not seem to be unfounded. Those whose faith has been shattered are violently proclaiming their scepticism, and in their journals they are using possess to urge their fellowsuch influence as they English extricate to themcountrymen to leave the selves as best they can. f Here we come upon an instance of that irony o fate o which condemns s many Irishmen to false positions. Logically, this minority is quite as justified in its hostility to England as was the majority on all previous occasions. They cannot forgettheir undeniablegrievon every ances against England. Irish history reminds to the page of the absurdity of leaving their interests tender mercies of theEnglishGovernment; while the dubious circumstances in which the Rule Home question made what purported to be its final exit, by no means tended to allay their suspicions. They have, consequently, clung to the formula “England’s diffithe doctrineis culty is Ireland’sopportunity,”though o beingrepudiated by the orthodox Nationalists who s long subscribed to it. The phrase has done much whether this primitive service, thoughit is doubtful Machiavelism has achieved very much. It has certainly been responsible for some strange spectacles, which cannot but have provoked a cynical smile from the onlooker. A belief in the necessary virtuousness of England’s enemies has involved Ireland in curious sympathies. However brutalor reactionary a country f might be, however remote from Irish ways o thought, f ithad merely to clash with England to b e assured o the moral—or even the practical-support of Ireland. The irony of t h e position was never more clear than at the present time, when the Gaelic enthusiasts are protestingtheirfriendshipforPrussia, which a fond imagination enables them to salute as the liberator o f small nations. and Posen Alsace-Lorraine are forgotten by those who, in normal times, would recognise in them fellow-victims of the teaching, might is right. While the various under-currents a t work in Ireland rise hereandtheretothesurface as interesting,and often apparently disconcerting, phenomena, the present time is one of some significance in the evolution of Irish public life. It has always been understood that, when the political incubus was removed, Ireland would cease factions, both equally t o be the possession of two of anythingthat could not reactionaryandintolerant be disposed o on party lines. The heat of warhas f however accelerated the melting of the intellectual ice inwhich thought had frozen hard.The most obvious change due to the Home Rule settlement has been the rallying o a great partof Nationalist opinion to England f in the present war. But that is the least encouraging feature of the changing scene. What is, the from national paint of view, far more important is the rapid disintegration of the old parties.Journals which have from the earliest times been regarded as strongholds of Irish nationality, whose existencehas been one long protest against English rule, are now worshipping the gods they would have burned. Consequently, their true character as mere time-servers is being recognised, and former admirers denounce them as mendacious “rags.” Nobody who has been concerned for spread the of modernideas in Irelandcanfail to rejoice at the discreditinto which thesenewspapers are falling.They have so long escaped criticism, because of their “soundness ” on the isolated question of self-government, that their showing up is nothing short of a .national benefit. It follows that if the mouthpieces of the official party politicianshavelostfavour, the men behind them are undergoing a like Those fate. familiar with the younger generation in Ireland have known ,how inconceivable it is that in an Irish Parliament they should be represented by those who had served their fathers. The labour movement and the co-operative movement have both shown the older politicians t o be wanting in the f f slightest conception o the needs o the present time. Years o concentration upon a single f question have effectively blinded them to the changed conditions which call for brains and methods of an entirely different II order. “Larkinism” co-operation and are two the most vital things that have engaged the people since the days they fought for the land. The former is openly attacked by the Nationalist Party, while thelatteris met with indifference or insidious, underhand opposition. Any crisis, therefore, that helps to break the moulds in stagnates must be which so much political thought ,welcomed by all who favour progress. great The strike in Dublin last Autumn gave a preliminary shake to the old political fabric, and twelve months later the rifts are being widened by the dissensionscaused by the European situation. f Not the least noteworthy effect o the prevailing disf of solution isthe modification o theusualcondition complete harmonybetween the opinion of the people and the opinion of the Church. ManyIrishmenare well aware of the frequent occasions when the Catholic Church actually, if not obviously,worked againstthe popular will, but the people never persisted in open defiance of the Church’s commands, except in matters of life and death to themselves.At thismoment, however, a number of perfectly orthodox Irish Catholics is publicly exconsciously making a standagainstthe pressed sympathies of the clergy. While latter the f have condemned the destruction o the cathedrals and championthe devastation of Belgium, the former are ing the culture that is responsible for those horrors. It is impossible to overlook this interesting demonstration of independence of thought in a quarterwhere conformity has been so long a virtue. Were the question onewhich vitallyconcerned the specific aims and welfare of Ireland, precedents might be cited. Butthis exposition of militarist morality applied to small nations has nodirectconcern for these Irishmen, unless it be to make them reflect upon the possible predicament of Ireland in similar circumstances. But aspect this of the question does nottroublethem. W e may,therefore, interpret their action as a sign of a gradually increasing indifference to clerical influences whenexercisedin mundane affairs. In short,thewarhasgivenIrelandanopportunity of showing, even before the practical advent of Home Rule, how difficult it will be for the old leaders, and the time honoured formulae, to control affairs. The glacier is melting morerapidly thanmighthavebeenanticipated, for even the mostsanguine did notexpect to seeMr. Redmond defied, and the Nationalist press denounced by Nationalists, until the Irish Parliament had been at worksometime. Newgroupingswere inevitable once the people were called upon to vote for something more vital than the sending o an obstructionist f to Westminster. To theirownparliamentthey would type for different send men of a different and very reasons. Theoutbreak of warhas postponed-rather absurdly-the last scene in the Home Rule drama, but it is likely that this interval may be almost as profitable as if the Parliament House in Dublin had been opened. Perhaps, more so, indeed, for without having to deal at the ,same with time actual probIems, the people are exercising their new freedom of political judgment, untroubled by the traditional party lines. E. A. BOYD. Impressions of Paris. THEamazing Calvinism of Roman Catholics is perhaps themostnaïve of theirparticularfrailties. Monotonously they protest against the shooting of the elect, the priests, these among, of course, hundreds of ‘civilians whohave been shot by theGermans. The priests go armed to the war. W h y shouldtheybe spared?One doesn’t get out of military service here by taking orders. But you can’t expect the enemy, who doesn’t like priests, to give them special favour. The priests about here most often have an aspect particularly belligerent, being, of course,stirredboth by patriotismandthe revival of dogmatism, and they are trying hard make to this war appear an affair directed against Popery ! This is the kind of stuff one reads : “The war is clothed with a character o exceptional f horror. Everyone rehas markedwithwhatpassiontheGermansshootpriests and destroy Catholic churches.” Every bomb that falls in Paris is supposed to be directed against Notre Dame ! You would forgetthattheEiffelTower in ruins would be more to the Germans than the destruction of the all Catholic churches France. in However, I wouldn’t miss my daily Catholic orgy. M. Maurice Barrès, Academician,isespeciallyprovocative. For the instruction of the concierges and our sainted mothers, he starts out journalistically to view the horrible scene of action. That General turns up at the very beginning, the ubiquitous opportune one who is there to say, “Ah, well, MonsieurBarrès, I’m just off outthere. If you have the heart-eh?” Of they trot in automobiles after f M. Barrès has dulyreplied aboutitsbeing really too much honour, my general ! And now behold us, the Prefect and several high officers with us, rapidly racing towards cannonade. the Ah ! Thispastoralcountry, land of éclogue, this nature ravissante, except for the little dangerous things that whizz through the air. [He means to say bullets.] Now we are almost within sight ofthebattle. A Frenchcontingent,hotpressed,appearsout of a wood carryingwoundedand crying“Ah, the swine, they usedum-dumbullets !” (These dum-dumsopportune as the general!] Our car sticks in a ditch. Ah ! the brave lads. Do they run away and leave me? Thethought neverenterstheirheads. [It enters his!] Brave gars ! W h a t a poor creature am I notbesidetheseheroeswithrifles? We get offagain and find the general. A shepherd takes up a suspicious position, doubt no to overhear talk. our [Brother to that one who always drives up his sheep as a signal to the enemy.] Hark, the Angelus ! W e return-through the dusk, busy his each with thoughts. Mine, how time I was foolish they are ! I think of the when eighteen. Maurice Barrès at eighteen and just deciding to present himself at Saint-Cyr.Ah, ah ! W e have our Fyfes and our “Daily Mails,” and so it seems to me that the standard this kind of literature of reallyneeds no Academy for its preservation. If most of the Catholic machination is only worth a smile, some is rather more serious. The wounded and dying are at the mercy of a Catholic hospital staff, and the plaguing of helpless soldiers by fanatics is becoming a scandal. A particularly mean case is now before the Government fell of National Defence. Some soldiers, wounded, among a nest of priests and devotees. A dear old whiteat theirlack o response f haired grande dame in fury to her religious attentions told them that they deserved to be sent back under fire “and this time to be purified.” A delicate souvenir of Inquisition ! A sentence from the letter of complaintgives a notion of whathappened. “The French wounded who would not attend Mass were refusedleave to walk about the village. The Germans who all attended are free togo out when they please.” THE BRITISH PROFITEER. Tune : TheBritishGrenadier. sometalk of Shaw and Masefield, and some of Begbie, too, But what of dear old Rothschild? was Briton e’er more true ? f For o all the world’s great martyrs, there’s none whom we revere, With a cent. per cent., per cent.., per cent., Like the British Profiteer., Was ever patriot as great as Mond or Carnegie? The latter can’t afford the cash, so he’ll give a library, Yes, of all the world’s great heroes, there’s none who can compare With a cent. per cent., per cent. (clink ! clink !) To the British Profiteer. CYRILS. DAVIS. 12 Here’s THENEW AGE ! People seem to have amused themselves with my impressions. They’re upside all down. However, it doesn’t matter. I proclaim a n fidence in the intelligence of my readers. I t is jolly to have THE NEW AGE. But Current Cant reads appalleast considered journal in lingly here. France ! the Paris would notventure to printsuchadvertisements as seem tobedecoratingEngland at thishour.The French en masse must never learn English o r they may credit these pamphlets which the Germans publish about us. One of thesharp touches o theGerman occupaf be tion is a threatthatcaptiveBelgianbabiesshall taught to say : “The English are the meanest among commercials.” This mud is going to stick if we don’t look out. Itiscurious,inthis connection, how the is constantly quoted by here certain “Daily Mail” journals. It has a way ofworming in ! But then, also, it has another way of worming into Germany ! Its correspondents, if one may venture to believe even a tithe they say, get right among the enemy,in their camps f and so on, photographing and sending of dispatches. Howisthatarranged ? W h a t is thequid pro quo? Germansdonotharbourordinary Englishmen. “Exceptional facilities for going where he would and seeing whatever interested him.’’ Rot. Rot in as many senses as thisword possesses.Exceptional. . It’s agood thing I ’m not ‘making inquiry. I wouldn’t stop to ,hear a smile this the evidence ! The “Spectator” gives me week-“The ‘Times’ publishes an informing and unsensational article on airship raids.” I t would be hard to go beyond this by way of spectatorial contempt for our ancient Thunderer. By the way, on the subject o filchf ing the soldier’s rum from him-every packet taken by the French soldier includes a flask of cognac. No Frenchwoman would be so crazy as to omit this, which is one of the indispensables of the list of articles advised. I’m revised afraidour men may return to Englandwith notions of manythings.The receptionthey havehad and will have to the end from the women on this side will weaken their tolerance for the teetotal, rights for women, white-slavery kind. A woman is a woman here, and jolly well intends to be it. A little sidelight on the women conductors who were so preposterous to begin with. They scarcely bother totake your ticket now. They never on anyaccount opendoor. a Theyhave ceased to scream at you. You are simply boreswho incessantly travel aboutundertheir eyes.Ioverheard in theMetro : “It’s tiring, isn’t it?’’ “Ah, ma chère, tiring, I am perfectly brutalised. ’My husband won’t know me when he comes back.” There seem to be a lot of aeroplanes up above. Bombs andcannonandweirdstreamersintheair. It is extraordinary how people stand watching for something to drop ! I do it myself, though I have a terror of bombs. I t seems now that these murders are usually attempted o r accomplished after Germans the have suffered very badly-a kind of diabolical bluff to put fear into us and spoil the good effect of the news. Today admirable is for the purpose, very sombreand cloudy, and the streets are full of funerals. There’s the a desperate fight somecannonagain.Theremustbe where over Paris; it seems to have lasted for hours. I got a feeling of being shut up indoors, and went over to the Eiffel Tour quarter and forgot all about bombs in admiration of some ‘beautiful little French mansions in the Avenue d’Iena, where our wounded are, when bang, bang ! went-it seemed right in my ears.Onething, the human brain cannot on keep stretch very long against an enemywho doesnotappear. The riverin front of the Champs Elysée, where the bank is pebbly and little clean waves come up like the sea, distracted me until I found I was being followed by a cyclist who wheeled after me right into the gardens, and I remembered how I haddeterminedlypeeredbetweenallthe cracks of fencing around some militaryaffair where a lot o soldiers were apparentlyjustidlingabout. f My man brought up short a few yards in front of me, took an enveloping, stare and rode back. I would have liked to ask him why it is that “Le Petit Journal” is allowed to plasteritsadvertisementoverthe sufficiently meanlookinglittleSeineboatsandonthe blank walls of Parisian buildings? N o other Paris journal commits this offence. The“PetitJournal”isnot precisely a newspaper that Paris would boast about. But, of course not ! A strange example o modern taste is the f advertisement of Chocolat Menier on every public lavatory.Butthenumber of such horrors couldeasily be countedhere,wherethewalls are adorned bynothing, but Government posters about the siege, the wounded and so on. Occasionally, you pass a new building with an immensehoardingaftertheLondonmanner-one such, if you can believe it, towers over against the best view of the Louvre--but this is only temporary. It is a very low-class landlord who will allow advertisements on his walls. “Le Petit Journal” seems to try to imitate our : “You own thing “Mail.” the Someone writes me will have to enlargeyourworstideasaboutHarmsworth in order to get a conception of the man’s present attitude-and, o course,the‘Times’isinittoo.” f I simply couldn’t enlarge my worst ideas about Harms-. worth. We is worst the influence in England. What can one think beyond that? I don’t want to think about the creature to-day, anyway. I’m half delirious influenza. with Yesterday, after writing, I went out and got nicely wet and now I’ve gat a fever. It is a time to compose astral sorts of little histories like I used to write. Or perhaps one mightstartthat novel aboutthedangerousage.It would take on its very proper own style under this temperature of the dog-days and gooseflesh. Somebody has done a lovely drawing of me. I look like the best type of Virgin Mary, without any worldly accessories, as it were. But what do I care about it .now--my career isnothingbut a sneeze. I feel as thoughonemore sneeze will finish me. And my femmede ménage is ill herself, and there’s no one to dash out now and g e t me the news. Onedoes scarcely dare thinkaboutthe battle.Lastnight people did notwanttotalkabout it.Theyjustreadthecommunicationsand looked a t each other. Our losses will be fearful, even if it abates to-night. A French soldiertold mehehadnothad a full sleep for thirty nights. The bad news about Dixmude has set all the boobies prophesying just again as before battle the of the Marne. W e are going to be bombarded in our beds by this time next week. The fortifications will crumble like old cakes under the fire of the 420 mortiers. Undeniable ! One hasone’s revenge now in quite a different way from, formerly. Oneagreeswitheverythingtheysay.One piles it up. I t would pass a dull day to see them skeltering off again to the Gare de Lyons with their fat, brassboundtrunks.Theimpudentair of these people, who bribed and fought their way out of Paris against miser-. able women and children, is past describing. Of course, wewhostayedknowthemall,every one. W e know just how and when they ran away. And to see them r e turn starched and goffered, bluffing and patronising, i s a thing verygalling. We herehaveacquired a little of rank and manner perhaps too easy. Distinctions riches,even o education, arenotyetagainquite f as powerful among the Enfants de Gallieni as before the General took us behind him in what might have beenour ‘last stand. We have not been to Biarritz or Bordeaux bathing hugger-mugger with the beau monde. We went to the Bois deBoulogne,and no doubtwe forgot all about the conventions, and some of us even had to do. without a hot bath for quitea while because a franc was hardto come by. Bah ! nexttime I detecttheleast . Yes I shall ! offensivenessin a runaway, I shall. Eventhough, of course,theyalmostmustbehave as offensively as possible by way of self-defence. The complement,or‘worse, of thesealarmistsisthetypethat professescontempt o theGermanforces,evenmore f stupid and anti-patriotic an attitude than the other. The fall of Paris would make these people a danger in the .. .. 13 country. They would noteven possessthestamina of ‘‘I told YOU SO,” which partially dresses the Jeremiah. YOUwould expect them to turn traitor to a man. A new kind of alarmistengineisanonymousletterssent by post, prophesyingbombardment and choleraandanything else possible, and concluding : “Reflect ! Now is the time to think of the possibility of Peace.” Hundreds have been reported as received by the small shopkeepers. Good Lord ! The “Egoist.” allincongruities ! Of Paris to-day and the “Egoist.” And one of themhas been here all along, apparently reading M. Maurice Barrès with the trust of my blanchisseuse. One is not therefore astonished to find o n September IO, the day weall went first mad and then dumb with praise of the 40— Allies who had just pushed the Prussians back “Theairis fresh, the sky grey, the swallows fly low. Rain is at hand. To market. Only a fewstallsare and a open, but those that are display a profusion variety of goods at the lowest possible prices : spinach, three or four kinds of beans, potatoes, salads of various descriptions, tomatoes, leeks, peas, cabbages, cauliflowers, carrots,turnips,quantitiesofdairyproduce, melons, pears, a few grapes these rare), (but are peaches.” ! To-day,October 26, the Not abaddayallround matutinal organ of M. Barrès gives the following information concerning the markets : “Numerous products of all sorts. Fruitandvegetablesabundant.Thearrival of potatoes would be very important if the transportsby railwereless difficult. Porks are very abundant. 238 beefs come have in. 75,000 kilos of fish, I t is once amusing more and 55,000 of mussels.” how the Egoists catch up with Paris several days after. Maldoror ! ThelastParisian devotee of “Maldoror” sketches him with the head o an ostrich and a eunuch’s f flank and trying to hide in the sand ! And here are our dear little aesthetes translating at this time of of a poor, selfday in rapture these “supreme ironies” tormented creature for whom, had he lived, no earthly refuge was possible butan asylum. One would not wonder thatthe “ O silken-eyed poulp!” andsimilar phrases of the seventeen-year old Ducasse (who liked to call himself the Comte de Lautréamont) seemed mysteriously ironic to people who will never getpastthis nebular age. I t still remains for Mr. Poundandthe rest to select noble pseudonyms the after aspiring of them might crib D u c a s s e b u t without any that, and sign “Maldoror” with no fear in the world o being f detected. I should say that all that genre of æstheticism a long time. Remember that is over forFrancefor practically all the men of France will have seen things beside which the little “strong school”fancies can no way compete Imagine “Maldoror” in Paris to-day bleating at seventeen about the war-“this stupid, uninteresting comedy. I salute you, ancient sea !” and so on. He would be now drilling in Class 1914, called not SO much to go to do anything, but to be kept out of mischief, theFrenchatthisagebeing peculiarlyunbalanced. No oneherewoulddenythe mischief done by “Maldoror,” during the recent years while moneyed France was sleepily giving Paris over to the Berlinois builders. Along with “safe” such drugs, very slow poison, as opium and cocaine, painters and poets found in “Maldoror,”etc.,etc. (thereisendlessquantityof such stuff in Paris), a defence frommodernlife,this very modern life of noise and advertisement which they -professed to find more than glory the real the and grandeur of livelier civilisations. We know what their and Well, is it works were in cubism prose-poetry. pretty certainthatseventeen-and-everything-done will find no audience among the generation next to leave the Lycées. YoungFranceis wide awakeagain.Therein all is said. Readers and Writers. M. VERHAEREN’S poem “La Belgique Sanglante,” which wasprinted in the “Observer” end at the of September, rather confirms my suspicions that patriotism, pure and simple, has ceased tu be a source of poeticalinspiration,whateveritmayhavebeen once Here is a man who, in the past, has written poetry, not indeed as great as his zealous admirers would have u s believe, but still bearing traces of sincerity and vigour. Yet although he derived some degree of inspiration from the more sordid aspects of modern life, the sight of his country being laid waste fails to extract from him anything rant but and abusive rhetoric. Why, THE, NEW A G E has printed poems, each line of which showed morehonestindignation a t capitalisthypocrites,than Verhaerenseemscapable of feeling (for surely, if he deserves the title of poet, feeling and expressing should, be all one to him) at the humiliation of Belgium. * * + The “Observer” it5 puff preliminary with. concludes theremark : “These will live.” likely lines Very ; so will “Tipperary.” it But seems more proper to inquire whether they deserve to live; whether they are good art; whether, in otherwords,they are true. Ah, at it ! A poem in which you can nowwearegetting point to lineuponline and condemn their contents as either fractional or negative truth, will certainly stand no serious test. And that is precisely the with case Verhaeren’s poem. Markyou, I amnot going todisputewhethertheamputatedfeet of infantswere discovered amongtheplunder in thepockets of German soldiers; or whether matrons have been found impaled with knives covered with milk and blood. To these details,whichVerhaerentabulates, I will onlyremark that, whatever their truth, they have no place in poetry at all. * * * But how dues “La Belgique Sanglante ” harmonise with previous writings o Verhaeren? us f Let see. I take down “Les Flamandes,” a volume of poems, t o find suitable quotations for comparison. As I intend t o giveanextract in English, my choice is limited.At length I find a compromise from the poem entitled “Les Paysans.” Listen Verhaeren’s to description of low life (or is it high life?) in Flanders :l ‘ Gangs of brawlers parade through the town; and theladschallengingthewenches(gouges),hugthem with might and main, jostling them belly to belly ; releasingthemandseekingthemagain in a carnal on-. slaught;throwingthemoverwithupraisedskirts and sprawlinglegs. . . The womenin their turn grow hot and tipsy, the acid of carnal desire burning their blood. And in these waves of leaping bodies, of surging backs, theunleashedinstinct becomes so unruly that, to see lasses lads and scuffling and writhing, bodies with all agog bumpingtogether,withscreamsandblows; to crush and savagely bite one another; them to see rollingdead-drunkincorners,wallowingonthe floor,. hitting against the wainscot, sweating with white foam upon their with hands, every lips; both with finger. rifling and emptying bodices, you would say-with such mettle do these lads let themselves go, with such frenzy do their wenches jerk their bodies-that heat is being. kindled at the black fire of rape.” * * * I salute you, ancient Influenza, half-forgotten pest ! ALICEMORNING. that I have scarcely able been to do justice to the spiritedalexandrines of theoriginal.Still, even in my version it can be observedhowedifyingthesethings are. And now M. Verhaeren comes along and talks to us about Des filles de seize ans dont l’âme et dont le corps Etaient vierges et clairs. . . . Ifthe descriptions in “Les Flamandes’’ aretrue, M. Verhaeren ought to have little grudge against the Germans. If, ontheotherhand,these are mere play- I refer the curious to the volume itself ; they will see- 14 ful fancieson M. Verhaeren’s part-well, dude the sentence? * need I con- + + The words last of M. Verhaeren’s poem are “le it. for sadisme Germain.” I will not discuss whether such an expressionisproper to poetry, or whether it is likely to convey any meaning to the man in the street (I understand that M. Verhaerenis a national poet). I merely suggest that this phrase most, aptly covers the state of affairs in Flanders, as roughly sketched s u t in the extract I have quoted from “ Les Flamandes.” to be the mean oftwo extremes, oneo which we possess f in the “Notes Week ” statement. The other exof the treme, when discovered, should prove to be something like the actual facts, and in some future notes we must search P. SELVER. * * * * * * As a matter of fact, M. Verhaeren is generally considered to be one of the most Germanic poets writing in the French language. Maeterlinck is, of course, another. A little treatise could easily be compiled (and several large ones probably will be,when the German universities get goingagain)ontherelationbetween these authors’ ancestry and their literary achievement. They introduce into French a somewhat exotic admixture, just as Tagore nearly did into English, and with similar results. Novel and eccentric effects were hastily mistakenfor skilful andartistic ones. all At events, is in Germany that M. Verthe truth remains that it (as theliterarycritics haerenhas come intohisown say).I havebeforeme at thepresent moment a sixpenny volume of German extracts from his poems, and I am not specially praising them when I say that they you mayhave readbetterthantheoriginals.Again, observed that Messrs.Constable and Co. are bringing StefanZweig? A out a volumeonVerhaerenbyone French Hardly. name? Perhaps Flemish a one? Not even that. No, I fearitis German-Viennese is the mildest alternative I can offer. Therearecritical worksVerhaeren on in French and Flemish. You would have thought one that of these might have suited the occasion. Or, at a pinch, one of our native scribes might have turned out a volume (appreciations, they call them now). But no, it is German or nothing ! Really, this devotion to an alien enemy is too noble to go unrecorded. * * * Another French poet who owed much of his achievement to a Germanic turn of mind was Verlaine.Mr. Wilfrid Thorley in his short biography (Constable and Co., IS. net) very truly says of him : “Verlaine’s own temper was entirely of Northern cast, his feeling for the elusive andtheforbiddingwasquite Gothic. . His to Flanders, own wanderings him took northward Holland and our own shores. W e also know (and Mr. Thorley points it out also) how Verlaine was fascinated byEnglishwords,choosingthemsometimes as titles €or his poems. Of Mr. Thorley’s biography I need only say that it will disappoint nobody who had the pleasure of reading his versions from early French poets in THE NEW AGE. The life of Verlaineoffersamplechances to the prying chatterbox who thrives on the indiscreet anecdote, the subdued wink and the furtive leer. There f isnone o this about Mr. Thorley. The good taste he shows as a translator does not fail him when he turns biographer. The extracts from Verlaine’s poetry which he translates are indeed“foredoomed perhaps to failure,” as he himself sayswith noundue modesty. In one case he has produced something that is, in itself, goodpoetry.But I thinkhe should havewarnedhis reader that it is hardly more than a free paraphrase of the “Chanson d’Automne,” a poem which no man is ever likely to translate into any language. .” * * + What are the true facts of thecaseaboutGerman world would be greatly the poorer for culture? “The the loss sf German music, but for little else that Ger“Notes of the many has everproduced,”declaredthe Week ” some in timeSeptember. is This far too hasty sweeping. greater and With moderation my thought colleague R. H. C. observes : “German has been too exclusively German thought to matter much outside itsownborders.” I think we canallowthis AMERICAN NOTES. AlthoughAmerican trade has beenaffected to some extent by the war, and extra taxation has been devised to supply the deficiencies o a Tariff deprived of its prey, f bookmakingcontinues as usual. The publishers have unloaded their announcements, which reveal the ,familiar chaos of printedmatter. I need hardlysaythatthe fewbookseven relatively important are importations T h e cessation of publishinghostilitiesinLondondoes flowering o f notseem likely to resultinanysudden American talent, in spite of the hints to the contrary. Even in their selection o “warliterature”the f publishers are characteristically taking their cues from London.Whilerivalfirmsassure us thattheirsis ‘‘ the only authorised edition ” of Bernhardi’s ‘‘Germany and “The Day of the the War,” Next Homer Lea’s Saxon ” is not among the reprints. But of course Lea is merely an American, so his quite interesting work is ignored by the up-to-datecitizens who must have the latest thing from Europe. Alas, thatourneutralityshouldcost us more ! Not only are we faced by the formidable volume of normal publishing, in addition to all the imported “war books,” but, as a crowning misery, we have to contemplate the birth of special newspapers dealing with the European crisis. The established German press proved has inadequate to the problem,how to convincethe United Statesthat all non-Germans are liars. Consequently, each week “The Fatherland ” is published New in York distributed, German and with efficiency, everywhere. I t may be obtained in cities and shops where I have searched in vain for the better-class American reviews. Theeditor, Mr. GeorgeSylvesterViereck,an amateureroticistin verse, has beenadmirablychosen for his work. As this consists demonstrating in the cowardice and criminality o England, no better person f could found be than a man whose ‘‘imaginative” faculties in journalism have revolted even the American dailypress. Mr. Viereck’s truths may be relied on to be stranger than fiction. As showing, however, that hisPrussianpurityhasnot been quiteuntainted by English commercialism, I may add that he considers he has crushed G. K. Chesterton by describing the “New Witness ” as a journal “practicallycirculawithout tion.” This & propos of Chesterton’s reference to Mr. Viereck’s poem on the Kaiser. Evidently the worst features of the “Krämervolk’s ” civilisation are dear to the champions of modern Germany. The general mid-Victorianism of the United States is, I suppose, the explanation of the dearth of good periodicals modern in with ideas this country. With the exception of “The Masses,” whose caricatures are interesting,cannot find a Socialist, even I or an intelligently Liberal periodical of any account. “ The Masses ” is devoid of ideas, beyond a crude conviction of the class struggle, which finds its only tolerable expression in the cartoons of Art Young and others. The letterpress unfortunately remains somewhere about the level of thelate“DailyHerald” at its best. “ The Metropolitan,” is by way of being “ socialistic,” and welcomes the effusions of our Galsworthys and Bernard Shaws. Its advertisements reached have the pitch of vulgar impertinence onlypossible where there is absolutelynoresistanceagainstBusiness. It is not unusual to find theliterarymatter so split up by the encroachments of tradesmen that only a few consecutive lines find space on one page. There is a curious irony in chasing indictment an of the Colorado profiteers through pages of advertisements, and finding it eventua little ally completed on the last page, where it has square together with two or three other contributions, similarly hounded about. was It under such circum- 15 stances that Mr. Shaw’s “ The Case for Equality ” was reprinted in America ! Constant attempts are being made apparently to fill the gap I have referred to. One o these, ‘‘ The Little f Review,”$ have notyet mentioned in my notes, although the review is now in its seventh number. ‘‘ The Little no from the Review ” offers, to my mind, variety numerous rival publications previously noted, unless it be an absence o the strident inanity o which I have f f complained. It is simply ambitiously dull. The London correspondent, however, unlike hercolleagues,is readable, although she entertains rather too grave fears for the loss to literature likely to result from the threatened enlistment of Mr. Richard Aldington. Speaking of ameetingwith Mr. Aldingtonand Mr. F. S. Flint, she says : ‘‘ I thought of the exquisite and delicate work of these two men in the ‘Anthologie des Imagistes,’ and it seemed to me barbarousthatwar should touch them-as cruel and useless as the shattering of a Greek vase by a cannon ball.” While I trust that the lady’s fears may not be realised, I feel she might have displayed a finer sense o perspective. f By theway,cesmessieursmust be getting a little adopted country. The rusty in the tongue of their back cover of “The Little Review” is devoted to a fullpage advertisement o “ The f Egoist,” which Mr. I will pass over the very Aldington helps to edit. Yankee humour o the whole thing, but I must protest f against the following specially ‘‘ featured ” sentence : “ ‘The Egoist ’ has not point d’appui whatsoever with another English journal.” In the name of the Immortal Forty, Mr. Aldington, what sort of Frenchisthis? What would Remy deGourmont say? His knowledge of English would be necessary to enable him to grasp the subtlety of that “ point d’appui with.” Certainly, as the paragraph continues, “it is unique.” I have several times written of “The Unpopular Review ” in thesenotes,andon each occasion I have noted how thevacuity of itscontents confirmed the prophetic nature of its title. In fairness I must now admit that I was premature in my belief as to the congruity of the title. “ The Unpopular Review ” is one of the most popular quarterlies in the States. When I say that it now transpires to be a special preserve for university professors, its popularity and its dullness are explained. The articlesin the October-December issue are typical of “ right-thinking ” America, of the people who pass for the representatives of something more intelligent than Business. W e shallhave to waitthree months before the names of thecontributorsare revealed, but is it necessary to know who these professors are? The man,forexample,who asks “ Is Socialism Coming?” and then proceeds t o display his ignorance of the elements of the question. H e thinks ( I ) that industry is notbecoming trustified, (2) that Socialism means State ownership. Fromthesebrilliantassumptions he deduces the fact that Socialism is not coming. Another gentleman discusses ‘‘ Free-speech Delusions,” and decides that the rightclaimed by others to disagree with himself is an abuse of free speech. We are only free to speak the things are that agreeable the to majority, to which, of course, the author belongs. And so on with the others. Clearly we haveno pressing need to learn the names of these thinkers. “ The Smart Set ” has again made a fresh start, this time under the editorship of Mr. H. L. Mencken, whose study of Nietzsche has made him the official spokesman of the Nietzscheans in America. I do not suggest that bis serious labours are very evident in his journalistic work. At the same time I notice two things which deservemention. My colleagueJohnPlayford will be, I trust, flattered to learn that his criticisms are entirely misunderstood by thedramaticcritic of the ‘‘ Smart f been also Set,” The, compiler o CurrentCanthas honoured by the attention of the editors, who have inaugurated quotations of a similar nature. This, my friends, is fame. E. A. B. Views and Reviews. War. OF the many books concerning war that are being published or re-published, this reprint o Lieut.Sakurai’s f work* hasthemostinterest for me. It reveals,with a naïveté that is akin t o genius, the spirit that keeps war alive makes and it glorious. When writing on pacifism a week or two ago, I suggested that the Pacifists understoodneither men nor life, anddidnot appreciate the value that men attached to certain ideas : thiswork of Lieut. Sakuraiservestoemphasisethe f criticism. Its chief value is, o course,psychological; f it is not, and does not pretend to be, a history o the Russo-Japanese war, it is simply a record o personal f experiences suffered and observations made by a man whotookpart in thestorming of Port Arthur,and came out of the battle crippled for life. But intimately as itreveals the Japanese mind, it doesnotestablish anyessential difference between the Japanese and the English minds. Our heroicpoets would have no difficulty understanding in Lieut. Sakurai ; and to men like Captain Scott, who have died cheerfully for “The greatness of England-my country, ” YamatoDamashii, Spirit the of old Japan, would not seem foreign. It is useless to talk of the “illusions” of war to a man has more who no illusions than had Sydney Smith, whose one illusion was the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and I suppose that Lieut. Sakurai, trained in Bushido, has never stopped t o consider that peculiar question of the twentieth century : “Does war pay?” It cannot be alleged against Lieut. Sakurai that he is insensible to thefiner feelings, or blind to the beauties f of life. To us, whohavecarried the principles o the division of labour to such an extreme that we have forgottenthe possibility of an inclusive culture for the f perfection o the complete man, the simplicity of some of theJapanesesentiments may be surprising. It is of a soldier on hard for us to understandtheregret “a month’s stay in leaving an encampment because the place had endeared to us, to some extent, the rivers How could we be indifferent to the and hills. tree that hadgiven us shelterand to the stream that had given us drink?” That may be too poetic a touch to appeal to an Englishpublic; but even an Englishman has, or had, an affection for horses, and the passage in which Lieut. Sakuraiarguesthe need of “a Red Cross for horses,” because “without such a provision, we cannot claim to be true to the principles of humanity,” is itself a refutation of the Pacifist argument that degrades war character. There are innuf merable instances in this book o a nobility and tenderness foreign even to the writings of the Pacifists ; and Iam now convinced of whatIhadbeforesuspected, that the Pacifiststalk of war as noman should talk of anything. Forthe heroic spiritthat finds itsmost fitting expression in war is not an insensitive spirit; there are descriptions in this book of thehorrors of war more moving than anything that I remember in Pacifist literature. Sight and smell were alike offended ; and the soul shrunk in horror from and shivered with pity for “the defeated heroes of the battle.” But the fact stated by Lieut. Sakurai, that “familiarity takes off the edge of sensibility ; if we should continue to be so shocked and disgusted, we could not survive the strain,” applies noless to the Pacifist thantothe warrior. But the warrior retained his humanity and his culture even while he learned to control his physiological reflexes ;he could sympathise with the enemy’sdead,admire their heroism, regret that often there were no means of identification and that their names could not be handed down to posterity. Having “no personal enmity towards anyone of the Russianfighters,andthereforequite .. * 2s. “Human Bullets.” By Lieut. Sakurai. (Constable. net.) 16 ready to pity those worthy of pity, to love those worthy of love,” Japanese magnanimous the were to their foes. Of thecourageoftheRussians,Lieut.Sakurai speaksmorethan once with admiration, gives more than one example. Speaking,forinstance, of theattempts to recaptureKenzan,Lieut.Sakuraisaysthat the Russians “repeated one attack after another, making a fresh sacrifice of men each time. . . This tenacity of purpose was truly worthy of a great Power and deservesouradmiration. Just as we have our loyal and brave Yamato-Damashii, they have their own undaunted courage peculiar to the Slav race.” The warrior does not defame his foes. of This an is not undiscriminating admiration courage ; Lieut. Sakurai draws distinctions between the Russian and Japanese spirit and methods, and appeals to experience for hisjustification of Japanese ideals. We heard much, at the time of the Russo-Japanese war, of thefatalisticcourage of theJapanese ; buttheterm would be betterapplied to the Russians ; for the Japanese It is true couragemore is vitalistic fatalistic. than that they go to battle determined to die ; they part from their families with ceremonies pertaining to death ; but a suicidal, intent. When itwith is a valorous, not there is need forextraordinary effort, when whatis demanded of themseemstobemorethanmancan do, the ceremonies are repeated among comrades, and they go out determined to die beautifully. Such a spirit is the spirit of the offensive, and it is supported and encouraged the by “friendly harmony” prevailing in a the Japanese army. the But Russian courage is spirit o obedience, of endurance ; it will suffermore f thanit will dare,anditis,as Lieut. Sakurainotes, compatible with an extreme carefulness of life. “ ‘Rather live as a tile thanbebrokenas a jewel,’ seemed their great principle, the contrary of the Japanese ideal ‘rather die beautifully than live in ignominy.’ ” That Lieut. SakuraishouldscorntheRussianidea of to experience “masterlyretreats,”and shouldappeal to prove that the Russians “do not seem to have gained many victories by theirskill in fallingback,”is explicable whenweremember that “to showone’sback to the enemy has always been considered the greatest disgrace a Samurai could bring upon himself.” But the spirit of the offensive isthespirit of free men, as Lieut. Sakuraimakes clear. Hespeaksmore than once of the “sincere, voluntary obedience” of the Japanese in contrast the with “absolute, obsequious f Discipline wasstrictin obedience” o the Russians. theJapanese Army,was,indeed, themorestrict becauseitwas intelligently self-imposed. Butobedience to orders, loyalty to commanders, did not exclude amiability ; Lieut. Sakurai shows us not a body o f troopsbut a band of brothers, finding even time in warforthelittlecourtesiesthatmake life agreeable. o the Rusf He contrasts this with the peculating spirit sian officers, who robbedtheirmen of theirpayand of sertheir rations; and concludes that “other kinds vice may secured other be in ways, the but faithful discharge of military duties, in the moment of life and deathonthebattlefield,can only come throughthe officers loving their men as their own children, and the men respecting their officers astheir own parents.” of disSuch aspirit of authoritywithoutoppression, of man, cipline without dernial of the finer qualities seems to have prevailed in the Japanese army ; and to it Lieut. Sakurai attributes their victories. To this extent has Lieut. Sakurai proved the case of the Pacifists; he has shown that the nature of war depends on the nature of the warriors. The war that we are now waging for universal peace is not revealing much of the spirit of thewarriorexpressed by Lieut.Sakurai. It is lack of general culture that makes us jingoistic rather than sacrificialin spirit;and by contrastwithLieut. Sakurai’s work, it would seem that our national spirit is dead, and only our national interests survive. It is at least a consolation that the Japanese found an inspiration in the words of Nelson at Trafalgar. A. E. R. British Music Versus German Music. By MANY “ Joseph HolbrookeI .-On Prejudice. people accuse me of having a n a x e to grind, or a bee in my bonnet,” as the Scotch say, when I write on our musical conditions, but I notice it is very seldom ! In that anyone can, or even dares, to contradict me my recent articles in THENEW AGE of this year I more an inthan proved thatthere is, intheBritishIsles, eradicable prejudice, a n indefinable distrust and distaste I fear,the women !) of their byourcountrymen(and ; and it h a s own composers o f .music, and their work often been my task to try and fathom the reason of this strong prejudice, so strong, that no efforts have been sparedtogetthesupport of ouraudiences, in every branch of the art, be it oratorio, song, piano playing, opera or choral, with the like result-in every part of the Islands, a complete failure to interest our own people sufficiently to make them pay for it ! Thackeray, a penetratingwriter,oncewrote of us, the English, as a nation of snobs, and I wonder if this is to be always true ! W e certainly behave like snobswhen British musicians are on trial ! I t needs no proof of mine to draw attention to the fact that nearly every attempt in this country to give foreign art is a financial success, particularly Opera, and where finance succeeds, the Press (which is very powerful and “ free ” in this country) give their whole-hearted support to any venbehind filthy lucre—not in front E ture. Art here comes Shallitbesaid,then,thatallthe foreign a r t ,a n d artists wehave to listen to, orreadabout,arefirstclass or even superior to our Bantocks, Elgars, Scotts, Gardiners,Williams, Bells, Boughtons,Quilters, Baintons,etc.? Imentionthesenamesforemostbecause, whether we are interested or not in their names, their workortheirsuccess,theyhave,individually,done a great deal o work, and they are unmistakably sincere f artists, ardent composers, many with original idioms. Very many of the foreign artists I hear in this country have the so-called “temperament” of the artist-in all cases they do their work with an appearance o artistry f -and the stodgy or the shy native composer here has, no such panoply (let us say) as broken English, or long hair, or dishevelled a appearance, or an unknown, ancestry ! All these, attributesare of muchpowerin id our strange land ! Everywhere, and everyone, will f n a foreign publication more artistically or moretemptingly put before their gaze and their purses ! A native publication, on the other hand, is nearly always common and plain, unadorned by colour, and very cheap in cost production,especially to the publisher ! ’This has been so now for a great many years, and with the exception of Novello and Co., who sometimes indulge in artistic work, chiefly by Elgar (Novellos have always “ buried their eggs in one basket ”) whose general publications have a decent appearance-the rest o our wealthy pubf lishers treat the music they get their profits by-like the public-very casually-a cheap, plain paper cover suffices for them, which is worth very little, and causes no esteem. On the other hand, a song issued by Germany, France or Russia (our pet idols !) is an artistic conception ; nine times sut o ten the paper is f god, the printing stylish, the and contents nearly always superior.Now,thisisnot to say that our work is inferior.Certainlynot,forverylittle of our best work is known, still less is published ;none of it is ever played morethanonceor twicea year, and when it is, it is mostly in manuscript; cannot it we buy even if we wanted to !-and itisgreeted by a large and hostile Press which promptly starts to dissect it or over-praise 17 it (their standard for native work is very high !) that it is a small wonder why our music is in such a pickle, why it is cheap, why it has no public support, etc., or why the work of native men rarely survives ! That does it survive,’ in and some cases sturdily, shows that we are not such weaklings as we read, and if aproper and due respect of it is shown, I have no f manner o doubt that the works which are bredhere will be liked, and often played on their merits-not because they are British. never I would wish that to happen, for French music suffers quite enough from praise from their own countrymen, as ours suffers from .neglect ! The reason of this article is to try and point out that our work is veryrarelyfairlytreated,andalsothat there is a very strong prejudice against our work, from the public point of view, from the publishers’ point of view, andmainly caused,worst of all, by thecritic’s point of view, who is (and should be, if he is an honest critic) all powerful. That suchprejudiceought to be crushed, and the works heard without mockery, will appeal, I hope, to all artists, whether in America or in I havenodoubtthatbothcountries suffer England. together, for I see by the list of musicians in power in America all practically are foreigners, although and America has little history yet in music, it certainly is not ever likely to have one if such observances are adhered to; in their choice of conductors, let us say, for example. America spends a great deal of money in music-all over Germany especially. Thereward they getis to find their country over-run with aliens ! Ours, being an older country with some sort of a history behind it-(I the Glee writers were don’t say a great one-albeit essentially British, and they are very fine workstoo; the Church, too, canboast o f some great writers) we have much to accomplish before we can “ toe the line,” and every chance should be given us. Instead of which, I have to point out that whenever any serious attempt is made to bringourmusic a stepfurtherintoour musical life-in fact a living force instead of a fictitious one-thenwefind to our astonishment that the treatment is bad from the very beginning, No one will publish the music, hence one has to pay for the orchestral parts, or any other copy required-no one. most likely, will perform it-it is elaborate-and certainlynoone would think of performing it except a s a noveltyfirst and foremost, which, I need not point out, is all wrong of all,when you are lucky €or its prosperity,; and last enough (or unlucky enough) to get it heard, the whole f upon itand breed unherd o parasiticcriticssettle healthy excitementonce, ,at in which many germs these, disseminated broadcast, their do exist ! and deadly work, and the public, the last judges of all and the most important for us, are hopelessly prejudiced before we have told our message, and it is hard ever to getthework heardagain.Thecritic, much abused I admit, is not a person to be lightly despised. As Gordon Craig aptly points out, a critic to be of the use he is obviously meant for should be carefully and well brought up in the nursery ! then fed on nourishing diet, and the largebrain (we hopeheisbornwith) well drilled forjudgmentasthego-between of the public. He is not at present in any way capable in .nine cases out of nine ! H e is an enemy to. any new thing. Tradition is his hobby and mediocrity his pleasure. He gets, further, a good deal of it, so he ought to be a clear judge even o mediocrity, but it is quite rational to say f the new idiom is to him a matter o great anxiety. He, f the critic, has proved it by his history and his deeds ! H will very slowly welcome it. But on the e Continent, either the artist is more common or the critic is more dishonest, for we eternally hear of the masterful supremacyof their workers ! N o doubt, inGermanyalone, there is a profound depth of mediocrity in composition, and the Strausses are not common, but we hear very little of their mediocrity. On the other hand, our mediocrity abounds ; it is constantly performed by an admir- ing Academy o r Royal College. There is no public for it, and the Press do not care one jot for it, or indeed, for superiority. All they want is “ news ” ! A concert devoted to Delius (who is perhaps a German) and Scott or Bantock receives a s muchseriousattention(or not so much, to be correct) as a concert devoted to a few students patronised by thePalmerFund “ Selection f Committee,” which boasts o no good work, much a great deal of snobbery, and over waste of time, £27,000 capital ! That is how wehave to “proceed” after years of in England ! So one will see many travail, on the part of a muchabusedpublic,thereis really small wonder at the lack of interest. In my own case, while recognising almost the diabolic prejudice against our music in England, I have had quite a lot of work performed, in fact the whole of it-and there is a great deal-and it is very difficult also t o perform well. I came, with others, at a time But this is not the point. wanted fetch to a jaded Press when a novelty was along ? The “novelty”isstillindemandforthe same purpose ! After a difficult and, let us say,first-class work has been performed with much pomp, it is buried ! The interest here evaporates at once ! The future performances have to takecareofthemselves,andthere seems to be no one, in these days, to call attention to this evil, this weird side ‘of our music life ! Surely when a work stands out in merit, as in the symphonic poems o Strauss or Liszt or Bantock, or the symphonies f by Sibeliusor Elgar, surelytheseworksshould be again and performed? again Are all our orchestras indifferent merit? to Do they only wish to perform a “ new ” ? Is there no judgment? workbecauseitis well of any When a powerful Presslikeourspeaks be a signal to give it again musicalworkthisshould and again, for surely enough concerts are given ! When I remember reception the of my Symphony, “ Les Hommages,”atthe Queen’sHall,yearsago, by the public and the Press, it was hailed as a “ masterpiece,” a lugubriousword whenused by a critic ! andmost warmly cheered. opinions Such of my work I have never read before or since, but despite this it was not performed ever again by the same orchestra or the same conductor (Sir Henry Wood). They never played i t again ! This is not a solitary case, and I do not suggest for an instant that this work is a masterpiece, but when a native work is greeted here in such a marked fashion a s to arrest even our public-(our slow and discriminatI suggest the work be heard again ing people !)-then and .again, to further appreciation of the beauties they have missed ! N o wonder, then, that we are in such a flabby state and our progress is slow. There are no Schumanns or Liszts t point out merit-the criticsnever do unless o theyfind it from the Continent. In England our musical men are quite indifferent to British music, and our conductors, I am afraid, lookupon our work solely a s a channel Press for attention. A a n exercise and “novelty” will bring a Press .man, is unfortunately their motto,andthevictims of “ novelty ” production are my theme ! One often reads that the “ old masters ” never made only too delighted this fuss for their work. They were to write, in that was their chief pleasure, and the like ! We live in a different age.Thenascentdukes who amused themselves with music and Haydn’s Toy Symphonies no longer exist. Instead we have Socialists, ! Lloyd Labour Leaders, Trade Unions, Bernard Shaw George ! “ HomeRule !” and a thousand otherdisto us. Music should be tractionsmuchmoreserious with us a lovely thing, to be generously welcomed and generouslysupported. “ First performances ” are all verywell, but they lead to nothing if not followed by other performances.Atour MusicFestivals,worksby marked men should only be included; instead, we have works by fiddlers, works by organists, works by aliens, such works affecting the progress here andnearlyall not one jot. A clear waste of time, and I am very sad to have to relate it. 18 Pastiche, A FABLE FOR PLOUGHMEN. Bill Bustard, ploughman, to his great surprise, Was told, one da that he should have a rise . O five good shillings, his weekly pay f Would be a pound on every Saturday. With head in air, he clod-ho ped to the farm, Half-thankful, half-disturbed by vague alarm. Howcould he spend a pound? Five extra bob ! He almost thought he’d better chuck his job. Happy on fifteen bob for thirty years, This wealth obsessed him with the strangest fears. In puzzlement he asked his friend, Jim Price. ‘‘ Lend it to me, mate,” was his sage advice. “ I’ll circulate it in a way that’s human And classic-namely, wine and song and woman.” When for the boon Bill did the farmer thank, He put his extra money in the bank. Now Bustard’s problem somehow, noised abroad, Attracted the attention of a lord, Two parsons and a pompous rail director, A tailor and a national health inspector, A pig, a manufacturer of flannel, A landlord and a doctor on the panel, A cocoa king, an emperor of soap, The secretary of a band of hope, A man who made-and sold-a lot of pills, And one who owned a dozen shoddy mills. Hearing of Bill’s dilemma, they agreed It would be kind to give the man a lead ; So called a meeting, and, with one accord, Put in the chair the willing noble lord. He thus began : “ The case of William Bustard, Who lately has been looking rather flustered, Is one in which we all are interested ; For William has some capital investedA fact that’s rather preying on his mind. I think-do you agree?-it would be kind To give him quickly, if we can, relief. The usual outlets, such as bread and beef, Rent, clothes, insurance, do not seem enough To ease his mind and pockets of the stuff That is the root of evil, so I call For a suggestion from the Reverend Squall.” The Reverend Squall arose ; the lord sat down. Squall said : “ About this matter of the crown That’s such a heavy weight on Bustard’s mind; My colleague and myself as one combined To give the case our very best attention, For it is of no ordinary dimension. I would suggest-in fact, we both suggestTo put his better nature to the test. And it would truly be a noble action To give the church a weekly benefaction.” Up bobbed the worthy doctor’s portly body. Too late ! The manufacturer of shoddy Was on his feet, and started with a shout : “I can’t think what you parsons are about. My fellow-manufacturers who’re here, Soap, cocoa, flannel, pills, my lord of beer, Too long have kept our wretched prices down. The parsons have the cross-give us the crown. As wages rise, commodities must riseAn economic truth that none denies.” A panel doctor thrust his spoke in next, And plain it was to see that he was vexed : ‘‘ I want an increase on my eight-and-six ! This cursed Act has put me in a fix. Non-panel patients tend to stay away. I want somecompensation. Extra pay Of some sort I will have, or else, by gad, I’ll certify you all as raving mad ! ” That Georgian saint, the national health inspector, Too quickly for the ponderous director, Uprose, and stated in his unctuous way : “ At present the Insurance Act don’t pay. I we extract from Bustard every fractionf I’m sure, quite sure, he would approve the actionEven then much-neededcash we wouldbe lacking; We must do something, with the Tories quacking.” The rail director called them addle-pates : ‘‘ It’s quite essential we should raise our rates. With soap and cocoa paying cent. per cent., Why with but five should railways be content ?” The landlord shrieked : “ You whine at five per cent. ! Try letting houses at the present rent. ” The secretary of the band of hope Then up and spoke : In vain with drink we cope. We’re handicapped all through by lack of cash ; so And really, gentlemen, I call it trash That doctors and the brewers want the lot. Presumptuous fools ! The phial and pewter pot Poison by turn. I wear, through this world’s strife, The white flower of a pure and thirsty life.“ “ Well, what of us ?” the parsons’ duet shouted. “ You go to hell !” And they both right-abouted. “ To hell with you!” the temperance man retorted, Bristling with rage to find his project thwarted. At this exchange the whole assembly rose. First came more curses, then a shower of blows. While church and laity are raising Cain, Exit the pig, with grunts of mild disdain, Soliloquising, as he homeward jogs : “ By Circe, I have met the super-hogs ! VECTIS. “ DIARY OF THE WAR. September 27 (Sunday).-The penny “Flim-Flam” arrives. All the week’snews hashed up with free cures for rupture and lumbago. Let “Business as Usual” henceforth be written in letters of gold. I received a card from a friend who has joined the Army; he says, “I am having a very decent time in the onlyGuild there is-though not entirely a democratic one. Cheers for the Army. Yesterday morning T saw a fire in a huge bucket in the street.Amanthrewa shovelful of coal on top of what I called the War. Instantly fierce tongues o flame shot UP in the air. There f goes the Insurance Act, I said. Another shovelful, more flames, and there, I added, follows the Trade Boards Act. September 28.—Ourright is the same, the centre shows no change, and on our leftthere is nothing to report. With contempt I regard my daily organ of veracity : it has lost prestige. What has become of the man with the apple almost as big asthe dome of a prominent literary pedlar’s head? I read the weekly “Herald.” I derive from Cartoons splendid. The only instruction reading the paper can be summarised thus : Keep off the drink, brother, and something ought to be done. G . K. C.’s unwritten views on the Insurance Act ought to be very interesting. Am convinced that the downfall of Democracy will be caused through overweight margarine. The “Daily Mail” publishes an extract the from “Cologne Gazette” : thelatter paper makes some unfriendly remarks about the much loved man in’ the City. Yah ! dirty Germans. The creeper on the wall is turning blood-red; the heather on the common is now a dull peace my heart ; purple; I become thoughtful. Peace, they would be just the same colour if a prominent statesman had been junketing at Berlin toreturn with a scheme to lift the poor o f the dunghill, and tell them f about thesun over themisty mountains. Once again, pass me the vinegar bottle. September 29—My relations with my landlord continue to be friendly. He sends the receipt, and says nothing. To-day, three people tell me that they are “ fed up ” with the papers; I wonder how far this feeling extends ? The “ Daily Chronicle ” publishes a letter from a private inthe Army Service Corps. He says, “This is rather a strange place to be in, but the country is the finest and prettiest I have seen. It reminds me of Mr. Lloyd George’s land scheme-every piece of land being cultivated-no waste land whatever.” I have a rapid vision of the poll-taxed, propertyless slavesyes, slaves—of En land—on half time, blindly submitting to deductions from the rice of their keep. I thank thee, Mr. Private, remindingI am not a free me that man-nay, not free to work unless my licence is stamped —not free to perform the most menial duties in the defence of the semi-detachedhired. to me by a landlord. Could the irony of my position be more striking? September 30.—£90,000 to be handed over to panel practitioners, in respect of State-insured persons who would not entrust their bodies to medical blacklegs. The nobility of the poor! They scorn the benefits of compulsion! Business as usual b the Prussian-minded Germany, officials. Let us boycott rag dollsmadein but the Insurance Act from the same place, never ! Not as long as one man remains in the trenches of bureaucracy gallantly doing his duty, while the soldier has 1½d. taken from his pay. My gatriotism, like the wine of life, keeps oozing out, drop y drop, and I decide to conclude my diary : after this date, not even THE NEW AGE would dare to publish it. The poll-taxed soldiers and gallant officers fighting for the protection of Prussianism in its dirtiest form. A t Home is a sight to bring down Nelson’s Column. No privileges in peace,, no responsibilities in war ; my political masters, Welsh, Scotch and Hebrew, I hopeyou are proud to draw this confession from one who is, what none of you are, an Englishman. C. G . for 1 9 LETTERS TO THE ‘EDITOR. FIGHTINGLIKEGENTLEMEN. Sir,-According tothe accepted definition patriotism means love of country, and implies a readiness to sacrifice oneself for the good of one’s country. The Press, however, insists that patriotism means the continual and virulentabuse of your opponent without any regard to the truth or otherwise of your abuse ; and also in flinging stones at anyone who ventures to ask for fairplay. The following letter was sent to the “Saturday Review,” the “Spectator,” and the “Sunday Chronicle.” The two latter paid no attention to it. Sir,-I do not see thatany unfairness to Germany can benefit England in any way, therefore I beg your permission to point out that the American war correspondents at the front, who can have no possible object in understating the truth, have denied that atrocities have been committed by Germans, other the than atrocitieswhich belong to all war, whether fought by Germans, British, or other any nation. The correspondents of the Associated Press of America, the “Chicago Tribune,” the “Chicago Daily News,” the “Philadelphia Ledger,” and others, have made a public statement to the effect that they were at ‘Louvain, Brussels, Landen, Nevelly, Beaumont, and many other places with the Germans, and that they pledge their professionalword that there were no atrocities. Every case they heard of and investigated proved absolutely groundless, and investigated stories of refugeeswere utterly unsubstantiated. The Germans paid all for purchases, and respected propertyrights. The Burgomaster of Solre-sur-Sambre voluntarily discounted reports of cruelty in the surrounding country. The American correspondents have also proved that the people of Louvain fired upon Germans from the windows, and thus provoked reprisals; and the Paris correspondent of the “New Statesman” has pointed out that the spire of Reims Cathedra? was used for a military post of observation from which directions were given to the French artillery outside the town. This IS not denied in Reims, and it led tothe serious damage of the roof-the of roof the Cathedral is the only part seriously damaged. The American “Evening Citizen,” which is not in any way pro-German, has proved that dum-dum bullets are not used by Germany, but Spitz bullets (which are also used by Britain and America}, and which often cause similar wounds. It has also been pointed out that the story of the little French boy shot by the Germans because he refused to say whether French soldiers were near, is groundless; the word Französling,” translated by the Press Bureau as little French lad, being only applied to the German subjects of Alsace and Lorraine, who have French sympathiesand wear French colours, and are, therefore, by the rules of war traitors. War is hell, and apt to turn men into demons ; even the recognised rules of war are in themselves atrocious. War, asLord Kitchener said, is not fought with rose water. As an example of the callousness bred by war, take the storytold by the “Star,” January II, 1900, by a sergeantofthe 62nd Battery at Modder River. “In one house we found six dead Boers round a table where they had been having tea. In the next room one of our infantrymen was playing the piano, and the rest were dancing round the room in great delight.” In war time especially it is best only to believe half of whatwe see, and nothing that we hear. As a proof of vivid imagination, take the case of the Russian soldiers who were supposed to have passed through England. Scores of people, from clergymen to railwaymen, havenot only seen them, but talked to them; and one ladyshowed a Russian flag which she said had been given to her by one of the Russian soldiers in the train passing through to the coast. After that, anything ! It was printed in the “Saturday Review,” apparently only togive the editor an opportunity for abusing the innocent writer(myself) and sneering, at him. It would be difficultfor the unbiased reader to point out the proGermanism which the editor sees so clearly. I should like to know by what right any British editor calls an honest Englishman or Englishwoman “pro-German,” or which frequently hap ens-“a German masquerading as an Englishman—and probably a spy.” If one such maligned person who could afford a law ’suit would bring a libel action against some orgulous occupant of an editorial chair it might clear the atmosphere. Truth is supposed to be an attribute of a Christian and civilised nation; fair play is understood to be a characteristic of the English nation-but the Press will have none of such miserable weaknesses. The editor of the “Saturday”if he knows his business-knows that the American war correspondents published the statement alluded to in my letter, and attached their names to it; et he calls my reference to their statement “a cock-and-gull story,” and f adds that the Americans are on the side o the Allies., Supposing, for the sake of argument, that America is on the side of the Allies, are the American correspondents, for that reason, to hide or pervert the truth about socalled German atrocities ? There are enough atrocities in all warfare without inventing or exaggerating them. The Press makes the mistake of supposing that no readers have friends in France, Holland, or America, and get no news from these countries, or from the front. I gave the authority of war correspondents, instead of my own, which might not be accepted. It is well known in France and in Reims that the Cathedral tower was used as a military observation post, but because I gave the correspondent of the “New Statesman” as an authority, the editor of the “Saturday”hastenstosneer at him, and adds that the windows o the Cathedral were broken. The f windows would be broken in any case by the vibration of theguns. Although the roof is the onlypart seriously damaged, it is impossible to read the dally papers without seeing at least one remark a day to the effect that the Germans destroyed the Cathedral—-whichis a deliberate lie. Whatabout the destroyed Cathedrals inEngland? Has the editor ever seen Fountains and Reveaux? Has he shed tears over the miles of lovely old stained lass, the many exquisite rood-screens, the hundreds of saintly figures, destroyed in cold blood (not in warfare-with Cromwell andother men acclaimed as heroes y t e English nation? The editor states that the account of German atrocities is official : I beg to say that it is nothing of the kind. Neither England nor America has instituted any official inquiry yet, and no one has a righttotakethe accounts of some Belgians as official I know that some stories are substantiation of facts. passed by the Press Bureau, but the Press Bureau passed the story of the mutilated English nurse ! An American lady writer is at present going round the English hospitals for the wounded for the purpose of getting at the truth of the atrocity stories ; she has not found a single authentic case-especially of outrage or mutilation of women or children. It is impossible to imagine what good purpose is supposed to be served by the endless abuse in the Press, and the suppression of free speech and free opinion. It will do England much harm in the end. The absolute fairness of THE NEW AGE shines like a star above all the wallow of mud and slime. The Press has it all its own way, and it is abusing its power. Such men as Arnold White and F. E. Smith write or speak of “England’s unbroken word” and Germany’s habit of tearing up treaties ; they rely upon the fact that the mob does not study history or international politics. I some f one who does study such things writes to the Press and whispers of Corea or Persia, or asks when Germany tore uptreaties, their letters are put in the wastepaper basket. This seems equivalent to sticking your head in the sand and believing yourself altogether hidden ! Far better tell the real truth of the cause of the war-we all know it. It is told often enough in other countries, and the tellers are compared to the late lamented Ananias by the British Press-but many people think that Ananias is working f overtime in England ! I the Press is simplyappealing to the mob, then it is getting first-class results, in the attempts at lynching German prisoners and the wrecking of German shops. Even Americans are not allowed to have opinions of their own, and a section of the Press is abusing Mr. Randolph Hearst., of New York, because he presumes to differ from these shining patriots, the Harmsworths, Garvins, Blumenfelds, and Hultons, on the cause of the war and England’s part in it. Mr. Hearst’s opinions of the British Press might be interestmg. FAIRPLAY. siegeguns)by + + + Sir,-I have no doubt as to who will win in the present war, but I am very much afraid that at the end of the war Britain will agree to some silly and futile settlement which will leave everythingas it stoodbefore. In your issue of September 17, Mr. Verdad tells us what, in his opinion, the settlement will be, and I am bound to say that, after reading many other English papers, I am afraid Mr. Verdad is not far from the mark. If the w a r has any such impotent conclusion as that foreshadowed by Mr. Verdad, I venture to prophesy that in five years’ timeBritain will be wholly occupied in preparing for the next German war. THESETTLEMENT. 20 Let us examine thesituation.Inthe west ofEurope thereare four highlycivilised Powers-Britain, France, Holland, and Belgium. Like all highly civilised peoples, each one of these nations has a very low birth-rate. The population of France is now stationary; that of Belgium, Holland, and Britain is nearly so. Yet these four nations of South haveall got great colonial empires. Outside America, which is closed u p by the Monroe Doctrine, every existing place in the sun is possessed by Britain, France,Holland, or Belgium. To the east of these four nations there lies an enormous nation which has no place in the sun at all.,Germany has nearly twice the area of Britain. It has fifty per cent. more population, and has the second largest birthrate in Europe. Its people are increasing a t a prodigious rate. They absolutely refuse, however, to emigrate; only 22,000 people left Germany last year. A s a manufacturing nation,Germany is growingfasterthananyother, and her manufacturers in are desperate need of new outlets. What does Germany intend to do in such a situation ? Surely everybody must, know that by this time. I knew it twenty years ago. In the early ’nineties I was i n Germany, and I got into numberless political arguments with Germans of all kinds-students, teachers, merchants, hotel-keepers, waiters, artisans. They told all me with the utmost lucidity what they meant to do : to destroy the British Empire annex and our colonies. The men with whom I hadthoseargumentsare now the mature and are the gospel men of Germany, they practising which they preached to me over their beer glasses. How do the friends of Mr. Verdad propose to end the Germanmenace?They propose to weaken Germany by taking from her Alsace, Lorraine, and Posen-thinly populated places containing among them a little over three million people. Then want they an indemnity. They do not say how much, but I do not think the indemnity demanded is at all likely to exceed £1,000,000,000. That would be half one year’s income of the German people. To aresoluteand prolific people struggling for an outlet, thatisnothing.Finally, we are to have “ a clear understandingastothe size of the German army and navy.” What would such an understanding be worth ? It would be “ ascrap of paper.”Suppose that in five years Germany again began building a huge France; navy. Who would stop her ? Not Russia or thesecountriesknowperfectly well that any fight they ever have with Germany will be mainly on land. Britain would be the only country that would have any interest in trying to stop the increasein the Germannavy,and we all know by this time that Britain cannot force Germanytofight on sea till Germany is ready to do so. We could only keep on increasing our navy against the competition of an adversary rapidly with a growing population which is already half aslargeagain as our own. When two capitalist nations like Britain and Germany engage in a life-and-death struggle, i t can only have one conceivable end. The Cato explained that long ago, Delenda est Carthago. Our methods need not be so harshas those of Cato, butthe sameresultsmust be reached by humaner means. Themildest way of finishing Germany as an enemy is to take from her. so much of her territory that what is left will no longer be dangerous. We must cut a slice of territory from Germany containing at leasttwenty million people, andhand it over to France. I some people think f this would be a harsh very measure, I beg to pointout that it would be an act of the greatest kindness to the Germans annexed to France. NoGerman province annexed to France will everwant to get back to Germany again. Look at Alsace and Lorraine. Out of a population of nearly millions, two thereare only two hundred thousand people who can All the are and rest pure unmitigated speak French. Germans,speaking no languagebut German. Yet they of Gerlove France and hate Germany. Annex as much many to France as you like, and in ten years the people of that territory will cleave toFranceand look upon Germany with horror. I would suggest that Bavaria, the Palatinate, Würtemberg, Baden, Alsace, andLorraine, the portion of Hesse south of the Main, and the part of Rhenish Prussia west o theRhine, be annexed to France. That would make f twenty millions of people, in one continuous and compact I should also be inclined to territory. For greater safety add Saxony and the Thuringian States. Twenty millions, however, are indispensable. It is also understood that Russia intends to take Posen and East and West Prussia, which contain more than five million people. That would cut twenty-five million people off Germany,leavingher forty-two millions of population and an area very slightly is quiteas greaterthanthat of theBritishIsles.That we can afford to leave Germany-too much, in much my opinion. Certainpersons will at once cry out that I am proposing to create a French peril to take the place of the German one. That: is nonsense. A warlike nation is always a nation of rapidly growing population. It makes war as amatter of business, in order to get an outlet. A nation a withstationary population is always profoundly peaceful. Thetwenty millionGermansannexed to France would soon learn the small family system, for those who come in contact with France soon learn French customs. There is not the slightest risk that France will everagain be awarlikenation,althoughshemay long continue to ablefight when required. In any event, France, even with twenty millions added to her population, would still have less than sixty millions. I sincerely trust that British public opinion will wake u p before the mischief is done. A peace such as Mr. Verdad predicts means that all of us will spend the rest of our lives preparing for war. R. B. K E R R . as * * * SOUTH AFRICA. Sir,-The Censor hasjustpermitted us to learn that Generals De Wetand Beyers haveorganised a rebellion in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. A few monthsagothe wiseacres of thiscountry, encouraged by the Press, hurrahed because the Boerswere given rifles to enable them to shoot Britishers who went on strike because they had a grievance. These rifles the Boers were allowed to retain. Why don’t the wiseacres cheer now ? CHARLES CHESTER. * * * FOREIGN AFFAIRS. elder “ Sir,-Mr. S. Verdad’s furtherreply tomy criticisms betrays a lack of discrimination. I questioned the texture so it is rather than the length of hisexegeticmaterial, irrelevant lor him to hint, as he does, that there are also many other things which Germany did, the which, if one, he supposes that even they should be written every the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. It only evokes the observation that there are many cogent reasons why Germany did them, “the which, etc.” (as per text). Good sportsmanship is, I believe, a distinctive property of the Britisher. (Was it not one of our sprightly French neighbours who remarked that the Englishman was the most cheerful winner he had ever met ?) Very well, then. What, if I appeal for fairplay for Germany? Is this, then, anti-British ? Am I, therefore, “blind to evidence” ? On the contrary, I want to see it-that is, the nine-tenths which the Press has locked up in the witnesses’ room. One thing seems obvious, and that is that to attempt to raisethe controversy on to a judicialplaneby judicial meansis futile. Views are notevenlistened to unless they are accentuatedby actual or assumedbiasForinstance, when John Bull exhibitsanagitateduvula close to my face, roaring out lamentations over certain deceased Belgian children, it is of no use my asking him how he would define an “atrocity” ; he would only gape at me. But if I tell him to go and finish digesting his fourteenyeax-old meal of “concentrated” Boer babies before he comes offending my nose andearswithhiseructative andmaudlin‘{Potsdam,Potsdam,thou that killest the prophets”-the brute is at least likely to be stung into betrayingaglimmeringapprehension of the truth that charity, if not the greatest, is some virtue. However, Bull is not a bad fellow, buthehas been spoiled byhisearly successes in empire-building. God gave him five talents, wherewith he bought a ship and a spade. And now, ahundredtalents lie heavily inhis pockets,ahundred napkins float lightlyinhis breezy country, andahundredtimidpersonsarestanding in little pits over the four quarters of the globe waiting for the Day of Judgment.Allthis is very gratifying,but Bull must not adopt a harsh attitude towards his younger imitators ; he must not regard spade work as uncultured, for his digging days are not over yet ; and, above all, he must not decry the doctrine that finding’s keeping. ARTHURBRENTON. *** Sir,-As the ‘‘ Morning Post ” is so kindlygiving advice to those mho arein doubt whatto do in these own case before it. times of war, I venture toputmy A “MORNING POST” INQUIRY. 21 on I would not trouble you with my little difficulty if I did not feel that m y case is also that o a great many other f people, and that ahauthoritative pronouncementbya great organ like the Morning Post ” would be a public advantage. The position is this :I am much puzzled to knowwhether I ought not, as a matter of conscience, to report myself tothe police as a possible alien. You will see from the accompanying family tree that since 1715 (or thereabouts), when George I was on the throne-a time when England was flooded with Germans-I havehad no lessthan 62 ancestors, only 14 of whom can be definitely proved to have I cantracemyparentage been of British nationality. back in a direct line, both on the father’s and mother’s side, to that date.But in adirect line only. My direct ancestors-whose names areinthe family Bible-were British, but,owing to someunaccountableneglect, the family not have been p dgees of the females of my eir carefully preserved, and I calculate that there must have been atleast 48 ancestors, both male and female, of whom I know nothing. For all I know, every one of them may have been Germans, and it is thereforepossible that I may be overwhelmingly of German blood. And I have notevenbeen naturalised! I you will clear up this knotty point, you will confer f a favour JOHN BROWN. “ TURKISH INDEPENDENCE. Sir,—Mr. Douglas Fox attributes Pitt to S . Verdad words which arereally mine. Hehas overlooked some inverted commas. The sentencequoted from myarticle should run :“‘ We do not wish to see Russia in Constantinople’ ; but we havegotourselves in sucha fix that in anot improbable contingency we should have to put her there.” The words from the semicolon onward are my comment admissions, -fairly deduced, I think, from various, couched in really diplomatic language, in a previous article by S. Verdad-an article which should be read by every Turcophil i n En land. I am sure that your gifted writer on “ Foreign Affairs ” never in his life wrote anything so crude as the sentence which Mr. Fox Pitt has MARMADUKE PICKTHALL.. in error ascribed to him. *** Sir?—In view of Mr. Pickthall’s repeatedexcusesfor Turkish unrest-namely, that she thought she knew that o f the Entente meant to make an end her-it would be interesting to know what he thinks of the Foreign Office stateIt opens thus : “Atthebeginning of ment justissued. the war the British Government gave definite assurances that if Turkeyremained neutral,herindependenceand integrity be respected during the war and in the terms of peace. In this FranceandRussiaconcurred.” Is the Foreign Office lying? But in that event the official correspondence will easilyprove it. It seems more probable that Mr. Pickthallhas been fooled by the Young Turks into whose complete confidence heappearsnever been to have taken. STANLEY HOPE. Government i n India. The money has come mostly from theIndianStates where the influence of the English political agent is notan impotentfactor.FromBritish Provincesmoney is coming because the British officials are helping the collection of funds. The talking machines of India—the so-called leaders-are giving vent to their personal feelings in the name of the nation, and shedding tears in the name o Indian women because at this dull f time whatelse could they do. Your Ministers a t home are busy in a recruiting campaign. Indian politicians havenot to ask men to come forward to fightforthe Empire. Offers were made by educated men o India f for voluntary services’ in the front. They were not accepted. The next attempt that the leaders and young men of Calcutta made was the offer of 2,000 young men were 40 Indian medical for an ambulancecorps.There men of European and Indian trainingwho wanted to come in this ambulance corps with Indian troops. Funds, also, were guaranteed by the publicfor the cost of this ambulance corps. ButGovernmentdidnot accept theservices. Now,how can we ever build a hope that we will betrustedbythealienGovernment? Here, i n England, Indian when studentsthese in Islandswanted to be recruited a sprivate soldiers, they were toldby the Under-Secretary f o rIndia : “He (Lord it would not be adCrewe) is disposed tothinkthat visable for Indian students to volunteer for military duties. . . His lordship is veryaverse to encouraging them.” The reasonsagainst theirenlisting given were thatthey would be required to remain three years in service, and that the sanction of their parents would be required. So they were giventhe privilege to join the ambulance corps. Lord Kitchener has said this war will lastthree years,and if sanction could be obtained for ambulance corps, or could be dispensed with, I do not see why we could not be permitted to join the Army. Then, is it to the credit of British administrators that after 200 ears’ peaceful government i n India the subject races could not be made trustworthy that they could be trusted with arms? We cannot volunteer ourselves to is it defend ourcountryorthe blessed Empire.Why that at this moment British Government in India is takingawayarms from theIndian officials andhonorary enjoyed the privilege of magistrates who so farhave keeping one or two out-of-order-and-date rifles ? Is this how loyalty is to be treated by that Government which boasts of having won thehearts of thepeople? Trust breeds trust, and not mistrust! AN INDIAN NATIONALIST. . *** would *** JUSTIFICATION OF INDIAN LOYALTY. Sir,—The “ Oxford Indian ” “ refuses to believe that the Indiantroops now fightingforthe Allies are mere mercenaries battling for no purpose, led by princes greedy for cheap governmental decorations, fighting their masters’ fight-the savagehordes from theEast employed to crush out German culture from Europe.” He thinks, “For such they would be if there were not a definite ideal informing them, for which alone they would be prepared to risk their very lives ! ” Pious presumption ! If the Indian people as a whole had any ideal, the state of affairs would be quite different from what it is. I f the Princes of India and the Indian troops had an ideal before them, they would notsaveandhelpforeigners in 1857. If we Nationalists would have been takenas volunteers, we would be fighting to-day in the frontier for an ideal. Our ideal would be to find a place in the brotherhood of nations. We would be. fighting side by side and againstthosevery people who only a decade ago would not tolerate an Indian holding a rifle a s against the white man. Tho onlyblessing of this war for my people is that we have come before the modern world to justify ourexistence as men. Now the world willnot easily forget us. For the rest, I do not build any hope on the gratitude of England that some think she owes to us. In this war England does not owe us anything. Indian troopshave been brought outtothefront because theyareinthe ay of the British Government in India. Indian Princes havecome because they are the creation of the British EZ FUR AWAY. Sir,-Please note how revolutionary the “Times” can be on events across the water. Writing of the poverty of the relief measures adopted by thePrussian Diet, the “Times” says that while the German people are making a thousand sacrifices, “itisevidentthatthePrussian magnatesintend victory to strengthentheir own position.” Is not this, however, business as usual ? And how many of our own magnates when the war is over will worse?an T.acre the be LOVELL.. AN AGE OF KNIGHTHOOD. Sir,-I be to draw attention your to the following article, which appeared in the “Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury” of October 26, 1914:LLANRWST DEMONSTRATION. DEPUTATION HOTEL, MANAGER. TO Aremarkableanti-Germandemonstrationwas held on Friday night at Llanrwst. A large crowd of people assembled in Ancaster Square were addressed by Councillor Albert Hughes, the vice-chairman o the Council, f who said that, although severalGermans who had resided in the valley were interned, they were still harbouring an’ enemy in their midst. The authorities were interning men between seventeen and forty-five, forgetting there was quiteas muchdangerto be expected from older men. They were not safe in the valley as long as they allowed a German to live there. However long they had lived in Britain they were still German a t heart. As they were aware, there was a German managing the Belle Vue Hotel,Trefriw (hooting). He suggested they should form into an orderly army and, in the first instance, ask this enemy to leave the district quietly. He urged upon them to keep the peace and to do nothing that was contrary to the law. If he refused to go, of course, they would have to adopt drastic measures. (Loud applause.) A crowd of about 350 then formed and marched over the Gaon Bridge free of toll into Carnarvonshire, tra- pay 22 versing _intervening miles the two singing patriotic songsand cheering. On their arrival in Trefriw they were reinforced by a large contingent, the army marching through the village to the hotel, which was guarded by two police constables. Thedeputation then entered the hotel, where they were met by the manager, Emyl Gippriche, who stood in the hall. Councillor Albert Hughes, having introduced the deputation, explained the nature of the demonstration, stating that the hundreds of men waiting outside were determined at all costs to clear the valley of both Germans and Austrians, so, in the first instance, they asked him peacefully and quietly to clear out of the district without any unnecessary delay. Mr. Gippriche replied that he had sent to the secretary of the company that owned the hotel, Mr. W. F. Goodwin, 67, Abbey Road, St. John’s Wood, London, and explained the position, and it would entirely depend upon him whether he vacated the hotel. He declared he was as loyal as any of them, and the people of Llanrwst had no right to interfere, as it was entirely a matter for the authorities. Further exchanges took place, and subsequently the demonstrators, on the reappearance of the deputation, marched to the Trefriw Square, where Mr. Hughes addressed them, and explained the result of the interview, and added that another meeting would be held at Llanrwst in a few days, when, unless the enemyhad vacated the district, drastic steps to accomplish this would be adopted. (Loud applause.) The army then marched back to Llanrwst singing and cheering. On the same page of the same paper there appeared a leader entitled“TheArmour of Honour,” in which the English sense of honour is praised above that of all nations, which might even be proved from the “smaller incidents of history,” such as happened in the battle of Fontenoy : “At the verycrisis of this contest”-so the paper tells us--“The English and French officers saluted one another, and Lord Charles Hay, springingtothe front, cried, ‘Gentlemen, of the French Guard, fire ! And the Count of Auteroche replied, ‘ Gentlemen, we never fire first ; fire yourselves ! ’ ” There is food for reflection in the juxtaposition of these two articles. Fancy the great “progress” the world must have made since the Middle Ages ! Think of the wonderful superiority of democracy over the age of knighthood ! And the glorious spread of patriotism amongst all classes of the population, the enthusiasm for the “ holy ” war amongst even the humblest citizens, which forces 350 of them to unite and “clear the valley”’ of onemiserable German hotel-manager ! A BLONDE BEAST. ‘ ‘‘live” projectile. Theinventor is said to have offered it tothe British Government, butour red-tape bound War Office refused it, raising all sorts of trivial objettions ; among others, that in consequence of our voluntary system, it would be difficult, except at great expense, to obtain the necessary ammunition. This was perfectly true, and is a striking comment on the evils of the voluntary system; but, at the same time, it is obvious that the real reason for discouraging this invention was the Same asthat which prevented the adoption of the torpedo in the early years Of last century, viz., the fear that it Would prove Of more use to our enemies than to us. It was hoped that if theinventor was discouraged, the invention would drop out of sight and be forgotten. But this hope was vain. The German Government heard of it and determined to investigate it. In order to avoid suspicion, they sent over a woman to study the gun and to master the mysteries of the projettile. It wasdangerouswork,butshewas a courageous woman. She soon became knownto,andverypopular with, the British public. Her name was Madam Zazelle. She performed her mission with wonderful ability and secrecy, and returned to Germany. She is now, in collaboration with a daring parachutist (well known to the public in the ’eighties), instructingacorps of aerialinvaders.The man-projecting gun has been perfected in the interveningyears. A large number of them have been constructed,, and 30,000 parachutes have been provided, and by these means the An Army Kaiser confidently hopes to surprise England. corps will be literally hurled on to our shores in rapidly successive flights of perhaps 1,000 men at a time. It is expected thatthe parachutes will enable t h e . men to alightsafely,and so the necessity will be avoided of spreadinganet. Having made this great discovery all by myself, I now make it public, in the hope that the British nation will rouse itself against the new danger. And I hope, at the same time, that a generous public will insist an on adequate reward being given to me. The work of reading the newspapers which I have voluntarily performed for so manyyears, solely out of an unselfish patriotism, has been brain a shattering labour, and I fear that I am not able to stand much more of it. SPIAL SEARCHEMOUT. * * * COMPULSION. * * * REVELATIONS OF AN ENGLISH SPY. Sir,-As the Government with habitual their blindness have refused the information that I am able to give them-or, at least, have refused to pay me for it-I now offer it to the British public in the hope that it will be more discerning and generous. Though I have never been to Germany I have been f painstaking study of the British able by means o a Press (which, as everybody now knows, for has years been run by the Germans, and which i s still in the pay of the German Government) to put two and two together and formsome important conclusions. We all know thatthe Germans have been preparing for this war for more than ageneration, and that even in the ’seventies and ’eighties they had agents over here studyingourdockyardsand gun-factories, andlearning from us how to build ships and make guns. This knowledge, which throughourstupidgenerositytheyeasily obtained from us, has been slowly maturing, and as an a outcome of it we are now confronted withterrible danger which is quite unsuspected. The Germans, likeall calculating people, are careful to have several stringstotheir bow. The dearest wish of their heart has always been the invasion of England. They founded theirhopes at one timeonthe Channel Tunnel.Latterly,the Zeppelin airshipraidhas been a favourite scheme. Both of theseplanshave failed. But they are full of surprises for us. The big siege guns are not theonlythingsthat have been secretly prepared. There is a plan, now nearly ready for execution, of which no one in this country has the slightest inkling. Those of us who are well on in middle life can remember that nearly thirty years ago there was a celebrated piece of ordnance to be seen at the Royal Aquarium in London. It was a gun of quite a new kind. throwing. a Sir,-It is most satisfactory to find in last week’s issue someone protest against the views you have continually put forwardwithregard to serum-therapy.Anyone who has any sympathy with your general position must agree with some of the things you say. But, surely, some recent writers in yourpaperhave been guilty of considerable confusion of thought. They seem to me to have failed to distinguish several questions they discuss, and have conif theyprove sequently put forwardargumentswhich, anything, prove only a part of the conclusion whlch is supposed to follow from them. There are at least three distinct questions involved, and neither Mr. Bonner nor the writer of the article on “Compulsion,” seems to be reallyaware that he is not trying to answer only one. The three questions are :(I) How far is it true that medicine has succeeded in discovering a serum which really reduces greatly the probability that a person inoculatedwith it will suffer severely from the disease? (2) In view of the answer to the first question-whatever it may be-is it advisable that soldiers in training should be inoculated ? (3) If the military authorities decide that it is advisable, is it right that those who have objections to such inoculation should be exempted? It is logically quite possible that one might see reason to answer questions these quite differently-the first, say, in the affirmative, and the second and third In the It is simply a question of evidence. And negative. though in your article and the ensuing correspondence, one might by searching find out arguments for each of them, there is no sign that the writers in question have realised theutterlydistinct character of thearguments which would establish the probability of each. The really important point in the whole matter is the curiousbias which THE NEW AGE hasfrequently displayedagainstpreventive medicine generally. I confess it hasalways seemed to me quiteinconsistentwith the most reasonable and scientific position it hastaken up with regard to economic theory, with its critical attitude its competent discussions to art and literature, and with of recent work in psychology. Bacteriology and Pathology are as exact sciences of the inductive S o r t as exist, but 23 you appear at times to regard them as little better than the ravings of the “Daily Mail” on dietetics in its Standard Bread campaign. Messrs. Seaford andMurraypermit themselves phrases which no man would use who had ever appreciated the attitude of disinterested science. What is the reason for thisdistortion in the usually AGE ? One can scarcely attribute clear Vision of THE NEW to it the view which seems to affectmostanti-vaccinationists and anti-vivisectionists-the dislike of the germtheory of disease because the admission o it seems to f impugn the goodness of God in his relation to his suspect another that and creatures. But I cannot but more insidious form of the same argument does play its f part-the notion that disease is the product o artificial conditions, and would be altogether absent if the simple laws of nature were observed. It is clear that such a doctrine keeps excellent and congenial company with vegetarianism and health-culture anti-vivisection, and and water-drinkin and other modes of the “simple and natural” mind, but it would be, indeed, tragic to discover it in the classic pages of THE NEW AGE. But what other explanation is there ? None at all, unless we suppose that your contributors are unable to see where their arguments lead, and thatthe whole business is simply a confusion of thought. I have said nothing about the question of compulsion, for I am not concerned here with the rights and wrongs of the matter. But some protest is sorely required against these attacks on pure science under the cover of political rights. And inthe interest of clear thinkinglet THE NEW AGE endeavour to find some ground for its less important views-or, better still, let it relegate such sentimental prejudices as anti-vaccination and anti-vivisection to the oblivion which all such relics of Fabian-mindedness deserve. M. W. ROBIESON. * * * Sir,-My attention was called to your issue of October I, where my friend Dr. Oscar Levy seemed to refer to my person as thecertain“Hungarian Illustrator” (?) who had to migrate to America in order to escape the persecution directed against aliens in England. I am afraid Dr. Levy misquoted my case, as I have never met even with the slightestdiscourtesy from anybody in England, let alone persecution directed against me. In fairness to everybody concerned I am bound to state that l certainly did not migrate to America. I only came over to execute some important commissions I got, and I hope to be back by December with my family. New York. WILLYPOGANY. A CORRECTION. * * * CHRIST versus CHRISTIANITY. Sir,-While thanking Dr. Oscar Levy for his courteous letter, I must point out that we are simply quarrelling supposes, and Chrisoverwords. If Christ was what he tian means what he and Tolstoi and the Pacifists would have it mean, then I am not a Christian. The Christianity to which I adhere is the traditional Christianity of the Church. If Dr.Levy’sChrist could notpossibly have founded that Christianity,then our Christ is not Dr. Levy’s : and that is allthere is tosayaboutthe matter. I he likes, I will, for the purposes of this arguf myself Catholic ment, drop the term Christian, and call or Christianist, or tripe-and-onions, or boo-boo-ba. It ‘really doesn’t matter. It’s only words, and when we have played general post with all the terms in the vocabulary, we shall simply re-find ourselves at my original position, which is this-that the creed which the Nietzscheans have got to demolish is not Christianity,Levy brand, but theordinary,living,working creed of 1914 years-a very different matter. E. COWLEY. WAS NIETZSCHE A BRUTE? * * * Sir,-I have quite expected to hear the objections which Mr. W L. Hare raises against my appeal . for the Germans in England. Mr. Hare is kind enough to veil his meaning, but my friends have been more explicit in their private conversations, and I am thus enabled to guess with air accuracy thegist of his somewhat too gentle reproaches. “How could Dr.Levy,” he seems toimply, “how could this truculent gentleman, who introduced US to the somewhat doubtful blessing of Nietzsche’s teaching, suddenly turn round and ask us for ‘softness’ in the treatment o the weak and the helpless Germans in our f midst?Has not Nietzsche always taught that the weak and the helpless have to go to the wall ? Is it, perhaps, because his disciple has himself become one of the weak ; is it because he himself feels unsafe ; is it because he himself now experiences what it is to be threatened and SUSpected, that he has suddenly been converted into a tame ? Does he now pleaderforjustice,pity,andgenerosity come to see the beauty of Christianity, now that he is an ‘ alienenemy, and stands himself in need of that sympathy which he formerly condemned in such a supercilious manner ?” These are obvious questions-questions, however, to which I could give above all the answer that this is not the first time I have the pleasure of tasting the sweets of persecution. L once left Germany-a long time agobecause I was boycotted there as a Jew. I then went travelling a great deal over the world, and once when in China I nearly lost my life because I was a Christian, all European “devils” being considered as Christians by the Chinese at that time. I have now been living in England fortwentyyears, and amdailyexpectingdetectives at my house who will arrest me asa German. I haveinvariably been on the wrong side as Jew, Christian,or German, and if I know nothing about persecution, no one else in the world knows anything about it. Mr. Hare will thus certainly see that nosudden conversion of the “sinner” can have taken place, and that there must be other reasons for my Nietzscheanism than lack of understanding for the down-trodden. It is rather my understanding of them which has turned me to Nietzsche’s teaching. I know from my own experience how difficult it is for the suffering and the down-trodden not to become poisoned and revengeful, and I know that no poisoned and resentfulcreaturecan ever be of any possible advantage to hissufferingbrethren.The weak cannot help the weak, the sick cannot help the sick, the embitteredcannot help the embittered. In order to help people, one must not belong to the people, in order to be just and generous, one must not belong to the class that clamours for justice and generosity.There is, therefore, no other way to be really a Christian than to cease being a Christian-a risky paradox, which, I hope, will not be entirely misunderstood. The combination of a Nietzscheanand an advocate of sufferers, who have become sufferers through no fault of their own, is thus an entirely logical one. T did not stand up for the professional goodfor-nothings which Christian charity has manufactured by the thousands during the last 130 years, but for people who were quite useful in their mostly humble places and of the knowledge and capability required for t e crime they were suspected of. “N’est pas diable qui veut,’’ as the French have it. I have known these Germanshere for twenty years; I have seen themarrested as “spies” or possible “spies” upon the denunciation of newspapers ; I have seen fathers of families kicked out of employments which they have held for a number of years. I would have reproached myself if I had not raised my voice against what I consider a rashness, an unfairness, an injustice. I have been warned by my friends not to do so, for “at the present juncture one should keep quiet and wait until the storm has blown over,” or, as another said, “one shouldnotdraw the eyes of the authorities upon oneself unnecessarily in the present state of excitement.” belong to “cautious” the specimens of But I do not humanity, and when “my heart is hot within me” (as the Psalmist has it) I will “ speak with my tongue.” Mr. Hare (and my other friends) will thus easily credit mewithnothaving pleaded. formy own safety.They might likewise see from my very imperfect example that they are wrong in attributing to Nietzsche and his teaching the idea of “harshness” and “pure egotism.” This is a superficial view-good enough for thepulpit and the press, but not good enough for serious discussions amongstliterary men. If Nietzsche taught hardness., he first taught it to be directed towards oneself and one’s own slackness; if hetaught egotism, he only taught egotism as a means to strength, so that one should become richer and healthier, so that one could afford to give and to bestow, so that one would be enabled to be just and generous, so that one should become capable of practising love instead of talking about love. Mr. Hare does not seem to see this, for, like SO many others, he has only become acquainted with a caricature of Nietzsche, whose super-man naturally appears to him onlyas aSuperbeast orSuperbrute.This, I am afraid isanentirelyChristian view, for thetypical Christian can never separate strength from brutality, which latter is the only strength known to the weak and the sentimental.Thestrength of the strong is an eternalriddle io them, and they will never understand that a brave man, such as Nietzsche and his ideal man, is by necessity always tender a man. Only non-Christians ever understood this : the Japaneseto this very day speak of the “tenderness of a warrior,” and the heroes of Plutarch are a much more generous and lovingtype thananything Christianity has ever produced or will ever produce. OSCARLEVY. 24 Subscriptions to THE NEW AGE are now at the following rates : United Kingdom. Abroad. one Year 28s. 0d. 30s. 0d. Six Months ... 14s. 0d. ... 15s. 0d. Three Months ... 7s. 0d. ... 7s. 6d. ... ... All communications relative to THENEW ACE should be addressed t o THENEW AGE, 38, Cursitor Street, E.C.