but　we　do　expect　what　we　do　not　expect。　　We　may　not　expect　the　true；
  we　may　not　even　expect　the　wise；　but　we　do　expect　the　unexpected。
  If　we　do　not　expect　the　unexpected；　why　do　we　go　there　at　all？
  If　we　expect　the　expected；　why　do　we　not　sit　at　home　and　expect
  it　by　ourselves？　　If　Mr。　McCabe　means　merely　this　about　Mr。　Shaw；
  that　he　always　has　some　unexpected　application　of　his　doctrine
  to　give　to　those　who　listen　to　him；　what　he　says　is　quite　true；
  and　to　say　it　is　only　to　say　that　Mr。　Shaw　is　an　original　man。
  But　if　he　means　that　Mr。　Shaw　has　ever　professed　or　preached　any
  doctrine　but　one；　and　that　his　own；　then　what　he　says　is　not　true。
  It　is　not　my　business　to　defend　Mr。　Shaw；　as　has　been　seen　already；
  I　disagree　with　him　altogether。　　But　I　do　not　mind；　on　his　behalf
  offering　in　this　matter　a　flat　defiance　to　all　his　ordinary　opponents；
  such　as　Mr。　McCabe。　　I　defy　Mr。　McCabe；　or　anybody　else；　to　mention
  one　single　instance　in　which　Mr。　Shaw　has；　for　the　sake　of　wit
  or　novelty；　taken　up　any　position　which　was　not　directly　deducible
  from　the　body　of　his　doctrine　as　elsewhere　expressed。　　I　have　been；
  I　am　happy　to　say；　a　tolerably　close　student　of　Mr。　Shaw's　utterances；
  and　I　request　Mr。　McCabe；　if　he　will　not　believe　that　I　mean
  anything　else；　to　believe　that　I　mean　this　challenge。
  All　this；　however；　is　a　parenthesis。　　The　thing　with　which　I　am　here
  immediately　concerned　is　Mr。　McCabe's　appeal　to　me　not　to　be　so　frivolous。
  Let　me　return　to　the　actual　text　of　that　appeal。　　There　are；
  of　course；　a　great　many　things　that　I　might　say　about　it　in　detail。
  But　I　may　start　with　saying　that　Mr。　McCabe　is　in　error　in　supposing
  that　the　danger　which　I　anticipate　from　the　disappearance
  of　religion　is　the　increase　of　sensuality。　　On　the　contrary；
  I　should　be　inclined　to　anticipate　a　decrease　in　sensuality；
  because　I　anticipate　a　decrease　in　life。　　I　do　not　think　that　under
  modern　Western　materialism　we　should　have　anarchy。　　I　doubt　whether　we
  should　have　enough　individual　valour　and　spirit　even　to　have　liberty。
  It　is　quite　an　old…fashioned　fallacy　to　suppose　that　our　objection
  to　scepticism　is　that　it　removes　the　discipline　from　life。
  Our　objection　to　scepticism　is　that　it　removes　the　motive　power。
  Materialism　is　not　a　thing　which　destroys　mere　restraint。
  Materialism　itself　is　the　great　restraint。　　The　McCabe　school
  advocates　a　political　liberty；　but　it　denies　spiritual　liberty。
  That　is；　it　abolishes　the　laws　which　could　be　broken；　and　substitutes
  laws　that　cannot。　　And　that　is　the　real　slavery。
  The　truth　is　that　the　scientific　civilization　in　which　Mr。　McCabe
  believes　has　one　rather　particular　defect；　it　is　perpetually　tending
  to　destroy　that　democracy　or　power　of　the　ordinary　man　in　which
  Mr。　McCabe　also　believes。　　Science　means　specialism；　and　specialism
  means　oligarchy。　　If　you　once　establish　the　habit　of　trusting
  particular　men　to　produce　particular　results　in　physics　or　astronomy；
  you　leave　the　door　open　for　the　equally　natural　demand　that　you
  should　trust　particular　men　to　do　particular　things　in　government
  and　the　coercing　of　men。　　If；　you　feel　it　to　be　reasonable　that
  one　beetle　should　be　the　only　study　of　one　man；　and　that　one　man
  the　only　student　of　that　one　beetle；　it　is　surely　a　very　harmless
  consequence　to　go　on　to　say　that　politics　should　be　the　only　study
  of　one　man；　and　that　one　man　the　only　student　of　politics。
  As　I　have　pointed　out　elsewhere　in　this　book；　the　expert　is　more
  aristocratic　than　the　aristocrat；　because　the　aristocrat　is　only
  the　man　who　lives　well；　while　the　expert　is　the　man　who　knows　better。
  But　if　we　look　at　the　progress　of　our　scientific　civilization　we　see
  a　gradual　increase　everywhere　of　the　specialist　over　the　popular　function。
  Once　men　sang　together　round　a　table　in　chorus；　now　one　man
  sings　alone；　for　the　absurd　reason　that　he　can　sing　better。
  If　scientific　civilization　goes　on　（which　is　most　improbable）
  only　one　man　will　laugh；　because　he　can　laugh　better　than　the　rest。
  I　do　not　know　that　I　can　express　this　more　shortly　than　by　taking
  as　a　text　the　single　sentence　of　Mr。　McCabe；　which　runs　as　follows：
  〃The　ballets　of　the　Alhambra　and　the　fireworks　of　the　Crystal　Palace
  and　Mr。　Chesterton's　Daily　News　articles　have　their　places　in　life。〃
  I　wish　that　my　articles　had　as　noble　a　place　as　either　of　the　other
  two　things　mentioned。　　But　let　us　ask　ourselves　（in　a　spirit　of　love；
  as　Mr。　Chadband　would　say）；　what　are　the　ballets　of　the　Alhambra？
  The　ballets　of　the　Alhambra　are　institutions　in　which　a　particular
  selected　row　of　persons　in　pink　go　through　an　operation　known
  as　dancing。　　Now；　in　all　commonwealths　dominated　by　a　religion
  in　the　Christian　commonwealths　of　the　Middle　Ages　and　in　many
  rude　societiesthis　habit　of　dancing　was　a　common　habit　with　everybody；
  and　was　not　necessarily　confined　to　a　professional　class。
  A　person　could　dance　without　being　a　dancer；　a　person　could　dance
  without　being　a　specialist；　a　person　could　dance　without　being　pink。
  And；　in　proportion　as　Mr。　McCabe's　scientific　civilization　advances
  that　is；　in　proportion　as　religious　civilization　（or　real　civilization）
  decaysthe　more　and　more　〃well　trained；〃　the　more　and　more　pink；
  become　the　people　who　do　dance；　and　the　more　and　more　numerous　become
  the　people　who　don't。　Mr。　McCabe　may　recognize　an　example　of　what　I
  mean　in　the　gradual　discrediting　in　society　of　the　ancient　European
  waltz　or　dance　with　partners；　and　the　substitution　of　that　horrible
  and　degrading　oriental　interlude　which　is　known　as　skirt…dancing。
  That　is　the　whole　essence　of　decadence；　the　effacement　of　five
  people　who　do　a　thing　for　fun　by　one　person　who　does　it　for　money。
  Now　it　follows；　therefore；　that　when　Mr。　McCabe　says　that　the　ballets
  of　the　Alhambra　and　my　articles　〃have　their　place　in　life；〃
  it　ought　to　be　pointed　out　to　him　that　he　is　doing　his　best
  to　create　a　world　in　which　dancing；　properly　speaking；　will　have
  no　place　in　life　at　all。　　He　is；　indeed；　trying　to　create　a　world
  in　which　there　will　be　no　life　for　dancing　to　have　a　place　in。
  The　very　fact　that　Mr。　McCabe　thinks　of　dancing　as　a　thing
  belonging　to　some　hired　women　at　the　Alhambra　is　an　illustration
  of　the　same　principle　by　which　he　is　able　to　think　of　religion
  as　a　thing　belonging　to　some　hired　men　in　white　neckties。
  Both　these　things　are　things　which　should　not　be　done　for　us；
  but　by　us。　　If　Mr。　McCabe　were　really　religious　he　would　be　happy。
  If　he　were　really　happy　he　would　dance。
  Briefly；　we　may　put　the　matter　in　this　way。　　The　main　point　of　modern
  life　is　not　that　the　Alhambra　ballet　has　its　place　in　life。
  The　main　point；　the　main　enormous　tragedy　of　modern　life；
  is　that　Mr。　McCabe　has　not　his　place　in　the　Alhambra　ballet。
  The　joy　of　changing　and　graceful　posture；　the　joy　of　suiting　the　swing
  of　music　to　the　swing　of　limbs；　the　joy　of　whirling　drapery；
  the　joy　of　standing　on　one　leg；all　these　should　belong　by　rights
  to　Mr。　McCabe　and　to　me；　in　short；　to　the　ordinary　healthy　citizen。
  Probably　we　should　not　consent　to　go　through　these　evolutions。
  But　that　is　because　we　are　miserable　moderns　and　rationalists。
  We　do　not　merely　love　ourselves　more　than　we　love　duty；　we　actually
  love　ourselves　more　than　we　love　joy。
  When；　therefore；　Mr。　McCabe　says　that　he　gives　the　Alhambra　dances
  （and　my　articles）　their　place　in　life；　I　think　we　are　justified
  in　pointing　out　that　by　the　very　nature　of　the　case　of　his　philosophy
  and　of　his　favourite　civilization　he　gives　them　a　very　inadequate　place。
  For　（if　I　may　pursue　the　too　flattering　parallel）　Mr。　McCabe　thinks
  of　the　Alhambra　and　of　my　articles　as　two　very　odd　and　absurd　things；
  which　some　special　people　do　（probably　for　money）　in　order　to　amuse　him。
  But　if　he　had　ever　felt　himself　the　ancient；　sublime；　elemental；
  human　instinct　to　dance；　he　would　have　discovered　that　dancing
  is　not　a　frivolous　thing　at　all；　but　a　very　serious　thing。
  He　would　have　discovered　that　it　is　the　one　grave　and　chaste
  and　decent　method　of　expressing　a　certain　class　of　emotions。
  And　similarly；　if　he　had　ever　had；　as　Mr。　Shaw　and　I　have　had；
  the　impulse　to　what　he　calls　paradox；　he　would　have　discovered　that
  paradox　again　is　not　a　frivolous　thing；　but　a　very　serious　thing。
  He　would　have　found　that　paradox　simply　means　a　certain　defiant
  joy　which　belongs　to　belief。　　I　should　regard　any　civilization
  which　was　without　a　universal　habit　of　uproarious　dancing　as　being；