When　the　old　Liberals　removed　the　gags　from　all　the　heresies；　their　idea
  was　that　religious　and　philosophical　discoveries　might　thus　be　made。
  Their　view　was　that　cosmic　truth　was　so　important　that　every　one
  ought　to　bear　independent　testimony。　　The　modern　idea　is　that　cosmic
  truth　is　so　unimportant　that　it　cannot　matter　what　any　one　says。
  The　former　freed　inquiry　as　men　loose　a　noble　hound；　the　latter　frees
  inquiry　as　men　fling　back　into　the　sea　a　fish　unfit　for　eating。
  Never　has　there　been　so　little　discussion　about　the　nature　of　men
  as　now；　when；　for　the　first　time；　any　one　can　discuss　it。　　The　old
  restriction　meant　that　only　the　orthodox　were　allowed　to　discuss　religion。
  Modern　liberty　means　that　nobody　is　allowed　to　discuss　it。
  Good　taste；　the　last　and　vilest　of　human　superstitions；
  has　succeeded　in　silencing　us　where　all　the　rest　have　failed。
  Sixty　years　ago　it　was　bad　taste　to　be　an　avowed　atheist。
  Then　came　the　Bradlaughites；　the　last　religious　men；　the　last　men
  who　cared　about　God；　but　they　could　not　alter　it。　　It　is　still　bad
  taste　to　be　an　avowed　atheist。　　But　their　agony　has　achieved　just　this
  that　now　it　is　equally　bad　taste　to　be　an　avowed　Christian。
  Emancipation　has　only　locked　the　saint　in　the　same　tower　of　silence
  as　the　heresiarch。　　Then　we　talk　about　Lord　Anglesey　and　the　weather；
  and　call　it　the　complete　liberty　of　all　the　creeds。
  But　there　are　some　people；　neverthelessand　I　am　one　of　them
  who　think　that　the　most　practical　and　important　thing　about　a　man
  is　still　his　view　of　the　universe。　　We　think　that　for　a　landlady
  considering　a　lodger；　it　is　important　to　know　his　income；　but　still
  more　important　to　know　his　philosophy。　　We　think　that　for　a　general
  about　to　fight　an　enemy；　it　is　important　to　know　the　enemy's　numbers；
  but　still　more　important　to　know　the　enemy's　philosophy。
  We　think　the　question　is　not　whether　the　theory　of　the　cosmos
  affects　matters；　but　whether　in　the　long　run；　anything　else　affects　them。
  In　the　fifteenth　century　men　cross…examined　and　tormented　a　man
  because　he　preached　some　immoral　attitude；　in　the　nineteenth　century　we
  feted　and　flattered　Oscar　Wilde　because　he　preached　such　an　attitude；
  and　then　broke　his　heart　in　penal　servitude　because　he　carried　it　out。
  It　may　be　a　question　which　of　the　two　methods　was　the　more　cruel；
  there　can　be　no　kind　of　question　which　was　the　more　ludicrous。
  The　age　of　the　Inquisition　has　not　at　least　the　disgrace　of　having
  produced　a　society　which　made　an　idol　of　the　very　same　man　for　preaching
  the　very　same　things　which　it　made　him　a　convict　for　practising。
  Now；　in　our　time；　philosophy　or　religion；　our　theory；　that　is；
  about　ultimate　things；　has　been　driven　out；　more　or　less　simultaneously；
  from　two　fields　which　it　used　to　occupy。　　General　ideals　used
  to　dominate　literature。　　They　have　been　driven　out　by　the　cry
  of　〃art　for　art's　sake。〃　　General　ideals　used　to　dominate　politics。
  They　have　been　driven　out　by　the　cry　of　〃efficiency；〃　which
  may　roughly　be　translated　as　〃politics　for　politics'　sake。〃
  Persistently　for　the　last　twenty　years　the　ideals　of　order　or　liberty
  have　dwindled　in　our　books；　the　ambitions　of　wit　and　eloquence
  have　dwindled　in　our　parliaments。　　Literature　has　purposely　become
  less　political；　politics　have　purposely　become　less　literary。
  General　theories　of　the　relation　of　things　have　thus　been　extruded
  from　both；　and　we　are　in　a　position　to　ask；　〃What　have　we　gained
  or　lost　by　this　extrusion？　　Is　literature　better；　is　politics　better；
  for　having　discarded　the　moralist　and　the　philosopher？〃
  When　everything　about　a　people　is　for　the　time　growing　weak
  and　ineffective；　it　begins　to　talk　about　efficiency。　　So　it　is　that　when　a
  man's　body　is　a　wreck　he　begins；　for　the　first　time；　to　talk　about　health。
  Vigorous　organisms　talk　not　about　their　processes；　but　about　their　aims。
  There　cannot　be　any　better　proof　of　the　physical　efficiency　of　a　man
  than　that　he　talks　cheerfully　of　a　journey　to　the　end　of　the　world。
  And　there　cannot　be　any　better　proof　of　the　practical　efficiency
  of　a　nation　than　that　it　talks　constantly　of　a　journey　to　the　end
  of　the　world；　a　journey　to　the　Judgment　Day　and　the　New　Jerusalem。
  There　can　be　no　stronger　sign　of　a　coarse　material　health
  than　the　tendency　to　run　after　high　and　wild　ideals；　it　is
  in　the　first　exuberance　of　infancy　that　we　cry　for　the　moon。
  None　of　the　strong　men　in　the　strong　ages　would　have　understood
  what　you　meant　by　working　for　efficiency。　　Hildebrand　would　have　said
  that　he　was　working　not　for　efficiency；　but　for　the　Catholic　Church。
  Danton　would　have　said　that　he　was　working　not　for　efficiency；
  but　for　liberty；　equality；　and　fraternity。　　Even　if　the　ideal
  of　such　men　were　simply　the　ideal　of　kicking　a　man　downstairs；
  they　thought　of　the　end　like　men；　not　of　the　process　like　paralytics。
  They　did　not　say；　〃Efficiently　elevating　my　right　leg；　using；
  you　will　notice；　the　muscles　of　the　thigh　and　calf；　which　are
  in　excellent　order；　I〃　Their　feeling　was　quite　different。
  They　were　so　filled　with　the　beautiful　vision　of　the　man　lying
  flat　at　the　foot　of　the　staircase　that　in　that　ecstasy　the　rest
  followed　in　a　flash。　　In　practice；　the　habit　of　generalizing
  and　idealizing　did　not　by　any　means　mean　worldly　weakness。
  The　time　of　big　theories　was　the　time　of　big　results。　　In　the　era　of
  sentiment　and　fine　words；　at　the　end　of　the　eighteenth　century；　men　were
  really　robust　and　effective。　　The　sentimentalists　conquered　Napoleon。
  The　cynics　could　not　catch　De　Wet。　　A　hundred　years　ago　our　affairs
  for　good　or　evil　were　wielded　triumphantly　by　rhetoricians。
  Now　our　affairs　are　hopelessly　muddled　by　strong；　silent　men。
  And　just　as　this　repudiation　of　big　words　and　big　visions　has
  brought　forth　a　race　of　small　men　in　politics；　so　it　has　brought
  forth　a　race　of　small　men　in　the　arts。　　Our　modern　politicians　claim
  the　colossal　license　of　Caesar　and　the　Superman；　claim　that　they　are
  too　practical　to　be　pure　and　too　patriotic　to　be　moral；　but　the　upshot
  of　it　all　is　that　a　mediocrity　is　Chancellor　of　the　Exchequer。
  Our　new　artistic　philosophers　call　for　the　same　moral　license；
  for　a　freedom　to　wreck　heaven　and　earth　with　their　energy；
  but　the　upshot　of　it　all　is　that　a　mediocrity　is　Poet　Laureate。
  I　do　not　say　that　there　are　no　stronger　men　than　these；　but　will
  any　one　say　that　there　are　any　men　stronger　than　those　men　of　old
  who　were　dominated　by　their　philosophy　and　steeped　in　their　religion？
  Whether　bondage　be　better　than　freedom　may　be　discussed。
  But　that　their　bondage　came　to　more　than　our　freedom　it　will　be
  difficult　for　any　one　to　deny。
  The　theory　of　the　unmorality　of　art　has　established　itself　firmly
  in　the　strictly　artistic　classes。　　They　are　free　to　produce
  anything　they　like。　　They　are　free　to　write　a　〃Paradise　Lost〃
  in　which　Satan　shall　conquer　God。　　They　are　free　to　write　a
  〃Divine　Comedy〃　in　which　heaven　shall　be　under　the　floor　of　hell。
  And　what　have　they　done？　　Have　they　produced　in　their　universality
  anything　grander　or　more　beautiful　than　the　things　uttered　by
  the　fierce　Ghibbeline　Catholic；　by　the　rigid　Puritan　schoolmaster？
  We　know　that　they　have　produced　only　a　few　roundels。
  Milton　does　not　merely　beat　them　at　his　piety；　he　beats　them
  at　their　own　irreverence。　　In　all　their　little　books　of　verse　you
  will　not　find　a　finer　defiance　of　God　than　Satan's。　Nor　will　you
  find　the　grandeur　of　paganism　felt　as　that　fiery　Christian　felt　it
  who　described　Faranata　lifting　his　head　as　in　disdain　of　hell。
  And　the　reason　is　very　obvious。　　Blasphemy　is　an　artistic　effect；
  because　blasphemy　depends　upon　a　philosophical　conviction。
  Blasphemy　depends　upon　belief　and　is　fading　with　it。
  If　any　one　doubts　this；　let　him　sit　down　seriously　and　try　to　think
  blasphemous　thoughts　about　Thor。　　I　think　his　family　will　find　him
  at　the　end　of　the　day　in　a　state　of　some　exhaustion。
  Neither　in　the　world　of　politics　nor　that　of　literature；　then；
  has　the　rejection　of　general　theories　proved　a　success。
  It　may　be　that　there　have　been　many　moonstruck　and　misleading　ideals
  that　have　from　time　to　time　perplexed　mankind。　　But　assuredly
  there　has　been　no　ideal　in　practice　so　moonstruck　and　misleading
  as　the　ideal　of　practicality。　　Nothing　has　lost　so　many　opportunities
  as　the　opportunism　of　Lord　Rosebery。　　He　is；　indeed；　a　standing
  symbol　of　this　epochthe　man　who　is　theoretically　a　practical　man；
  and　practically　more　unpractical　t