a　spade　a　spade　starts　very　early　in　our　literature　and　comes
  down　very　late。　　But　the　truth　is　that　the　ordinary　honest　man；
  whatever　vague　account　he　may　have　given　of　his　feelings；　was　not
  either　disgusted　or　even　annoyed　at　the　candour　of　the　moderns。
  What　disgusted　him；　and　very　justly；　was　not　the　presence
  of　a　clear　realism；　but　the　absence　of　a　clear　idealism。
  Strong　and　genuine　religious　sentiment　has　never　had　any　objection
  to　realism；　on　the　contrary；　religion　was　the　realistic　thing；
  the　brutal　thing；　the　thing　that　called　names。　　This　is　the　great
  difference　between　some　recent　developments　of　Nonconformity　and
  the　great　Puritanism　of　the　seventeenth　century。　　It　was　the　whole
  point　of　the　Puritans　that　they　cared　nothing　for　decency。
  Modern　Nonconformist　newspapers　distinguish　themselves　by　suppressing
  precisely　those　nouns　and　adjectives　which　the　founders　of　Nonconformity
  distinguished　themselves　by　flinging　at　kings　and　queens。
  But　if　it　was　a　chief　claim　of　religion　that　it　spoke　plainly　about　evil；
  it　was　the　chief　claim　of　all　that　it　spoke　plainly　about　good。
  The　thing　which　is　resented；　and；　as　I　think；　rightly　resented；
  in　that　great　modern　literature　of　which　Ibsen　is　typical；
  is　that　while　the　eye　that　can　perceive　what　are　the　wrong　things
  increases　in　an　uncanny　and　devouring　clarity；　the　eye　which　sees
  what　things　are　right　is　growing　mistier　and　mistier　every　moment；
  till　it　goes　almost　blind　with　doubt。　　If　we　compare；　let　us　say；
  the　morality　of　the　DIVINE　COMEDY　with　the　morality　of　Ibsen's　GHOSTS；
  we　shall　see　all　that　modern　ethics　have　really　done。
  No　one；　I　imagine；　will　accuse　the　author　of　the　INFERNO
  of　an　Early　Victorian　prudishness　or　a　Podsnapian　optimism。
  But　Dante　describes　three　moral　instrumentsHeaven；　Purgatory；
  and　Hell；　the　vision　of　perfection；　the　vision　of　improvement；
  and　the　vision　of　failure。　　Ibsen　has　only　oneHell。
  It　is　often　said；　and　with　perfect　truth；　that　no　one　could　read
  a　play　like　GHOSTS　and　remain　indifferent　to　the　necessity　of　an
  ethical　self…command。　That　is　quite　true；　and　the　same　is　to　be　said
  of　the　most　monstrous　and　material　descriptions　of　the　eternal　fire。
  It　is　quite　certain　the　realists　like　Zola　do　in　one　sense　promote
  moralitythey　promote　it　in　the　sense　in　which　the　hangman
  promotes　it；　in　the　sense　in　which　the　devil　promotes　it。
  But　they　only　affect　that　small　minority　which　will　accept
  any　virtue　of　courage。　　Most　healthy　people　dismiss　these　moral
  dangers　as　they　dismiss　the　possibility　of　bombs　or　microbes。
  Modern　realists　are　indeed　Terrorists；　like　the　dynamiters；
  and　they　fail　just　as　much　in　their　effort　to　create　a　thrill。
  Both　realists　and　dynamiters　are　well…meaning　people　engaged
  in　the　task；　so　obviously　ultimately　hopeless；　of　using　science
  to　promote　morality。
  I　do　not　wish　the　reader　to　confuse　me　for　a　moment　with　those　vague
  persons　who　imagine　that　Ibsen　is　what　they　call　a　pessimist。
  There　are　plenty　of　wholesome　people　in　Ibsen；　plenty　of
  good　people；　plenty　of　happy　people；　plenty　of　examples　of　men
  acting　wisely　and　things　ending　well。　　That　is　not　my　meaning。
  My　meaning　is　that　Ibsen　has　throughout；　and　does　not　disguise；
  a　certain　vagueness　and　a　changing　attitude　as　well　as　a　doubting
  attitude　towards　what　is　really　wisdom　and　virtue　in　this　life
  a　vagueness　which　contrasts　very　remarkably　with　the　decisiveness
  with　which　he　pounces　on　something　which　he　perceives　to　be　a　root
  of　evil；　some　convention；　some　deception；　some　ignorance。
  We　know　that　the　hero　of　GHOSTS　is　mad；　and　we　know　why　he　is　mad。
  We　do　also　know　that　Dr。　Stockman　is　sane；　but　we　do　not　know
  why　he　is　sane。　　Ibsen　does　not　profess　to　know　how　virtue
  and　happiness　are　brought　about；　in　the　sense　that　he　professes
  to　know　how　our　modern　sexual　tragedies　are　brought　about。
  Falsehood　works　ruin　in　THE　PILLARS　OF　SOCIETY；　but　truth　works　equal
  ruin　in　THE　WILD　DUCK。　　There　are　no　cardinal　virtues　of　Ibsenism。
  There　is　no　ideal　man　of　Ibsen。　　All　this　is　not　only　admitted；
  but　vaunted　in　the　most　valuable　and　thoughtful　of　all　the　eulogies
  upon　Ibsen；　Mr。　Bernard　Shaw's　QUINTESSENCE　OF　IBSENISM。
  Mr。　Shaw　sums　up　Ibsen's　teaching　in　the　phrase；　〃The　golden
  rule　is　that　there　is　no　golden　rule。〃　　In　his　eyes　this
  absence　of　an　enduring　and　positive　ideal；　this　absence
  of　a　permanent　key　to　virtue；　is　the　one　great　Ibsen　merit。
  I　am　not　discussing　now　with　any　fullness　whether　this　is　so　or　not。
  All　I　venture　to　point　out；　with　an　increased　firmness；
  is　that　this　omission；　good　or　bad；　does　leave　us　face　to　face
  with　the　problem　of　a　human　consciousness　filled　with　very
  definite　images　of　evil；　and　with　no　definite　image　of　good。
  To　us　light　must　be　henceforward　the　dark　thingthe　thing　of　which
  we　cannot　speak。　　To　us；　as　to　Milton's　devils　in　Pandemonium；
  it　is　darkness　that　is　visible。　　The　human　race；　according　to　religion；
  fell　once；　and　in　falling　gained　knowledge　of　good　and　of　evil。
  Now　we　have　fallen　a　second　time；　and　only　the　knowledge　of　evil
  remains　to　us。
  A　great　silent　collapse；　an　enormous　unspoken　disappointment；
  has　in　our　time　fallen　on　our　Northern　civilization。　　All　previous
  ages　have　sweated　and　been　crucified　in　an　attempt　to　realize
  what　is　really　the　right　life；　what　was　really　the　good　man。
  A　definite　part　of　the　modern　world　has　come　beyond　question
  to　the　conclusion　that　there　is　no　answer　to　these　questions；
  that　the　most　that　we　can　do　is　to　set　up　a　few　notice…boards
  at　places　of　obvious　danger；　to　warn　men；　for　instance；
  against　drinking　themselves　to　death；　or　ignoring　the　mere
  existence　of　their　neighbours。　　Ibsen　is　the　first　to　return
  from　the　baffled　hunt　to　bring　us　the　tidings　of　great　failure。
  Every　one　of　the　popular　modern　phrases　and　ideals　is
  a　dodge　in　order　to　shirk　the　problem　of　what　is　good。
  We　are　fond　of　talking　about　〃liberty〃；　that；　as　we　talk　of　it；
  is　a　dodge　to　avoid　discussing　what　is　good。　　We　are　fond　of　talking
  about　〃progress〃；　that　is　a　dodge　to　avoid　discussing　what　is　good。
  We　are　fond　of　talking　about　〃education〃；　that　is　a　dodge
  to　avoid　discussing　what　is　good。　　The　modern　man　says；　〃Let　us
  leave　all　these　arbitrary　standards　and　embrace　liberty。〃
  This　is；　logically　rendered；　〃Let　us　not　decide　what　is　good；
  but　let　it　be　considered　good　not　to　decide　it。〃　　He　says；
  〃Away　with　your　old　moral　formulae；　I　am　for　progress。〃
  This；　logically　stated；　means；　〃Let　us　not　settle　what　is　good；
  but　let　us　settle　whether　we　are　getting　more　of　it。〃
  He　says；　〃Neither　in　religion　nor　morality；　my　friend；　lie　the　hopes
  of　the　race；　but　in　education。〃　　This；　clearly　expressed；
  means；　〃We　cannot　decide　what　is　good；　but　let　us　give　it
  to　our　children。〃
  Mr。　H。G。　Wells；　that　exceedingly　clear…sighted　man；　has　pointed　out　in　a
  recent　work　that　this　has　happened　in　connection　with　economic　questions。
  The　old　economists；　he　says；　made　generalizations；　and　they　were
  （in　Mr。　Wells's　view）　mostly　wrong。　　But　the　new　economists；　he　says；
  seem　to　have　lost　the　power　of　making　any　generalizations　at　all。
  And　they　cover　this　incapacity　with　a　general　claim　to　be；　in　specific　cases；
  regarded　as　〃experts〃；　a　claim　〃proper　enough　in　a　hairdresser　or　a
  fashionable　physician；　but　indecent　in　a　philosopher　or　a　man　of　science。〃
  But　in　spite　of　the　refreshing　rationality　with　which　Mr。　Wells　has
  indicated　this；　it　must　also　be　said　that　he　himself　has　fallen
  into　the　same　enormous　modern　error。　　In　the　opening　pages　of　that
  excellent　book　MANKIND　IN　THE　MAKING；　he　dismisses　the　ideals　of　art；
  religion；　abstract　morality；　and　the　rest；　and　says　that　he　is　going
  to　consider　men　in　their　chief　function；　the　function　of　parenthood。
  He　is　going　to　discuss　life　as　a　〃tissue　of　births。〃　　He　is　not　going
  to　ask　what　will　produce　satisfactory　saints　or　satisfactory　heroes；
  but　what　will　produce　satisfactory　fathers　and　mothers。　　The　whole　is　set
  forward　so　sensibly　that　it　is　a　few　moments　at　least　before　the　reader
  realises　that　it　is　another　example　of　unconscious　shirking。　　What　is　the　good
  of　begetting　a　man　until　we　have　settled　what　is　the　good　of　being　a　man？
  You　are　merely　handing　on　to　him　a　problem　you　dare　not　settle　yourself。
  It　is　as　if　a　man　were　asked；　〃What　is　the　use　of　a　hammer？〃　and　answered；
  〃To　make　hammers〃；　and　when　asked；　〃And　of　those　hammers；　what　is
  the　use？〃　answered；　〃To　make　h