America　added　to　all　her　other　late　Roman　or　Byzantine　elements
  the　element　of　the　Caracallan　triumph；　the　triumph　over　nobody。
  But　when　we　come　to　the　last　test　of　nationality；　the　test　of　art
  and　letters；　the　case　is　almost　terrible。　　The　English　colonies
  have　produced　no　great　artists；　and　that　fact　may　prove　that　they
  are　still　full　of　silent　possibilities　and　reserve　force。
  But　America　has　produced　great　artists。　　And　that　fact　most　certainly
  proves　that　she　is　full　of　a　fine　futility　and　the　end　of　all　things。
  Whatever　the　American　men　of　genius　are；　they　are　not　young　gods
  making　a　young　world。　　Is　the　art　of　Whistler　a　brave；　barbaric　art；
  happy　and　headlong？　　Does　Mr。　Henry　James　infect　us　with　the　spirit
  of　a　schoolboy？　　No；　the　colonies　have　not　spoken；　and　they　are　safe。
  Their　silence　may　be　the　silence　of　the　unborn。　　But　out　of　America
  has　come　a　sweet　and　startling　cry；　as　unmistakable　as　the　cry
  of　a　dying　man。
  XIX　Slum　Novelists　and　the　Slums
  Odd　ideas　are　entertained　in　our　time　about　the　real　nature　of　the　doctrine
  of　human　fraternity。　　The　real　doctrine　is　something　which　we　do　not；
  with　all　our　modern　humanitarianism；　very　clearly　understand；
  much　less　very　closely　practise。　　There　is　nothing；　for　instance；
  particularly　undemocratic　about　kicking　your　butler　downstairs。
  It　may　be　wrong；　but　it　is　not　unfraternal。　　In　a　certain　sense；
  the　blow　or　kick　may　be　considered　as　a　confession　of　equality：
  you　are　meeting　your　butler　body　to　body；　you　are　almost　according
  him　the　privilege　of　the　duel。　　There　is　nothing；　undemocratic；
  though　there　may　be　something　unreasonable；　in　expecting　a　great　deal
  from　the　butler；　and　being　filled　with　a　kind　of　frenzy　of　surprise
  when　he　falls　short　of　the　divine　stature。　　The　thing　which　is
  really　undemocratic　and　unfraternal　is　not　to　expect　the　butler
  to　be　more　or　less　divine。　　The　thing　which　is　really　undemocratic
  and　unfraternal　is　to　say；　as　so　many　modern　humanitarians　say；
  〃Of　course　one　must　make　allowances　for　those　on　a　lower　plane。〃
  All　things　considered　indeed；　it　may　be　said；　without　undue　exaggeration；
  that　the　really　undemocratic　and　unfraternal　thing　is　the　common
  practice　of　not　kicking　the　butler　downstairs。
  It　is　only　because　such　a　vast　section　of　the　modern　world　is
  out　of　sympathy　with　the　serious　democratic　sentiment　that　this
  statement　will　seem　to　many　to　be　lacking　in　seriousness。
  Democracy　is　not　philanthropy；　it　is　not　even　altruism　or　social　reform。
  Democracy　is　not　founded　on　pity　for　the　common　man；　democracy　is
  founded　on　reverence　for　the　common　man；　or；　if　you　will；　even　on
  fear　of　him。　　It　does　not　champion　man　because　man　is　so　miserable；
  but　because　man　is　so　sublime。　　It　does　not　object　so　much
  to　the　ordinary　man　being　a　slave　as　to　his　not　being　a　king；
  for　its　dream　is　always　the　dream　of　the　first　Roman　republic；
  a　nation　of　kings。
  Next　to　a　genuine　republic；　the　most　democratic　thing
  in　the　world　is　a　hereditary　despotism。　　I　mean　a　despotism
  in　which　there　is　absolutely　no　trace　whatever　of　any
  nonsense　about　intellect　or　special　fitness　for　the　post。
  Rational　despotismthat　is；　selective　despotismis　always
  a　curse　to　mankind；　because　with　that　you　have　the　ordinary
  man　misunderstood　and　misgoverned　by　some　prig　who　has　no
  brotherly　respect　for　him　at　all。　　But　irrational　despotism
  is　always　democratic；　because　it　is　the　ordinary　man　enthroned。
  The　worst　form　of　slavery　is　that　which　is　called　Caesarism；
  or　the　choice　of　some　bold　or　brilliant　man　as　despot　because
  he　is　suitable。　　For　that　means　that　men　choose　a　representative；
  not　because　he　represents　them；　but　because　he　does　not。
  Men　trust　an　ordinary　man　like　George　III　or　William　IV。
  because　they　are　themselves　ordinary　men　and　understand　him。
  Men　trust　an　ordinary　man　because　they　trust　themselves。
  But　men　trust　a　great　man　because　they　do　not　trust　themselves。
  And　hence　the　worship　of　great　men　always　appears　in　times
  of　weakness　and　cowardice；　we　never　hear　of　great　men　until
  the　time　when　all　other　men　are　small。
  Hereditary　despotism　is；　then；　in　essence　and　sentiment
  democratic　because　it　chooses　from　mankind　at　random。
  If　it　does　not　declare　that　every　man　may　rule；　it　declares
  the　next　most　democratic　thing；　it　declares　that　any　man　may　rule。
  Hereditary　aristocracy　is　a　far　worse　and　more　dangerous　thing；
  because　the　numbers　and　multiplicity　of　an　aristocracy　make　it
  sometimes　possible　for　it　to　figure　as　an　aristocracy　of　intellect。
  Some　of　its　members　will　presumably　have　brains；　and　thus　they；
  at　any　rate；　will　be　an　intellectual　aristocracy　within　the　social　one。
  They　will　rule　the　aristocracy　by　virtue　of　their　intellect；
  and　they　will　rule　the　country　by　virtue　of　their　aristocracy。
  Thus　a　double　falsity　will　be　set　up；　and　millions　of　the　images
  of　God；　who；　fortunately　for　their　wives　and　families；　are　neither
  gentlemen　nor　clever　men；　will　be　represented　by　a　man　like　Mr。　Balfour
  or　Mr。　Wyndham；　because　he　is　too　gentlemanly　to　be　called
  merely　clever；　and　just　too　clever　to　be　called　merely　a　gentleman。
  But　even　an　hereditary　aristocracy　may　exhibit；　by　a　sort　of　accident；
  from　time　to　time　some　of　the　basically　democratic　quality　which
  belongs　to　a　hereditary　despotism。　　It　is　amusing　to　think　how　much
  conservative　ingenuity　has　been　wasted　in　the　defence　of　the　House
  of　Lords　by　men　who　were　desperately　endeavouring　to　prove　that
  the　House　of　Lords　consisted　of　clever　men。　　There　is　one　really
  good　defence　of　the　House　of　Lords；　though　admirers　of　the　peerage
  are　strangely　coy　about　using　it；　and　that　is；　that　the　House
  of　Lords；　in　its　full　and　proper　strength；　consists　of　stupid　men。
  It　really　would　be　a　plausible　defence　of　that　otherwise　indefensible
  body　to　point　out　that　the　clever　men　in　the　Commons；　who　owed
  their　power　to　cleverness；　ought　in　the　last　resort　to　be　checked
  by　the　average　man　in　the　Lords；　who　owed　their　power　to　accident。
  Of　course；　there　would　be　many　answers　to　such　a　contention；
  as；　for　instance；　that　the　House　of　Lords　is　largely　no　longer
  a　House　of　Lords；　but　a　House　of　tradesmen　and　financiers；
  or　that　the　bulk　of　the　commonplace　nobility　do　not　vote；　and　so
  leave　the　chamber　to　the　prigs　and　the　specialists　and　the　mad　old
  gentlemen　with　hobbies。　　But　on　some　occasions　the　House　of　Lords；
  even　under　all　these　disadvantages；　is　in　some　sense　representative。
  When　all　the　peers　flocked　together　to　vote　against　Mr。　Gladstone's
  second　Home　Rule　Bill；　for　instance；　those　who　said　that　the
  peers　represented　the　English　people；　were　perfectly　right。
  All　those　dear　old　men　who　happened　to　be　born　peers　were　at　that　moment；
  and　upon　that　question；　the　precise　counterpart　of　all　the　dear　old
  men　who　happened　to　be　born　paupers　or　middle…class　gentlemen。
  That　mob　of　peers　did　really　represent　the　English　peoplethat　is
  to　say；　it　was　honest；　ignorant；　vaguely　excited；　almost　unanimous；
  and　obviously　wrong。　　Of　course；　rational　democracy　is　better　as　an
  expression　of　the　public　will　than　the　haphazard　hereditary　method。
  While　we　are　about　having　any　kind　of　democracy；　let　it　be
  rational　democracy。　　But　if　we　are　to　have　any　kind　of　oligarchy；
  let　it　be　irrational　oligarchy。　　Then　at　least　we　shall　be　ruled　by　men。
  But　the　thing　which　is　really　required　for　the　proper　working　of　democracy
  is　not　merely　the　democratic　system；　or　even　the　democratic　philosophy；
  but　the　democratic　emotion。　　The　democratic　emotion；　like　most　elementary
  and　indispensable　things；　is　a　thing　difficult　to　describe　at　any　time。
  But　it　is　peculiarly　difficult　to　describe　it　in　our　enlightened　age；
  for　the　simple　reason　that　it　is　peculiarly　difficult　to　find　it。
  It　is　a　certain　instinctive　attitude　which　feels　the　things
  in　which　all　men　agree　to　be　unspeakably　important；
  and　all　the　things　in　which　they　differ　（such　as　mere　brains）
  to　be　almost　unspeakably　unimportant。　　The　nearest　approach　to　it
  in　our　ordinary　life　would　be　the　promptitude　with　which　we　should
  consider　mere　humanity　in　any　circumstance　of　shock　or　death。
  We　should　say；　after　a　somewhat　disturbing　discovery；　〃There　is　a　dead
  man　under　the　sofa。〃　　We　should　not　be　likely　to　say；　〃There　is
  a　dead　man　of　considerable　personal　refinement　under　the　sofa。〃
  We　should　say；　〃A　woman　has　fallen　into　the　water。〃　　We　should　not　say；
  〃