{"id":2411,"date":"2013-07-13T01:41:27","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:41:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=2411"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:41:27","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:41:27","slug":"02-harmony-of-virtues-vol-01-early-cultural-writings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/03-cwsa\/01-early-cultural-writings\/02-harmony-of-virtues-vol-01-early-cultural-writings","title":{"rendered":"-02_Harmony of Virtues.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tThe Harmony
\n\t\t\tof Virtue<\/font><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t Book
\n\t\t\tOne<\/font><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tKeshav Ganesh \u2014 Broome Wilson <\/i><\/font>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 My dear Broome, how opportune is your arrival! You will
\nsave me from the malady of work, it may be, from the dangerous opium of solitude.
\nHow is it I have not seen you for the last fortnight?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 Surely, Keshav, you can understand the exigencies of the Tripos?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 Ah, you are a happy man. You can do what you are told. But put off
\nyour academical aspirations until tomorrow and we will talk. The cigarettes are
\non the mantelpiece \u2014 pardon my indolence! \u2014 and the lucifers are probably stowed
\non the fruit\u2014 shelf. And here is coffee and a choice between cake and biscuits.
\nAre you perfectly happy?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 In Elysium. But do not let the cigarettes run dry; the alliance of
\na warm fire and luxurious cushions will be too strong for my vigilance. Do you
\nmean to tell me you can work here?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 Life is too precious to be wasted in labour, & above all this
\nespecial moment of life, the hour after dinner, when we have only just enough
\nenergy to be idle. Why, it is only for this I tolerate the wearisome activity of
\nthe previous twelve hours. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 You are a living paradox. Is it not
\njust like you to pervert indolence into the aim of life?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav
\n<\/i>\u2014 Why, what other aim can there be?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 Duty, I presume.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav
\n<\/i>\u2014 I cannot consent to cherish an opinion until I realise the meaning of duty.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson
\n<\/i>\u2014 I suppose I have pledged myself to an evening of metaphysics. We do our
\nduty when we do what we ought to do.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav
\n<\/i>\u2014 A very lucid explanation; but how do we know  <\/i>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/font>
\n\t\t\t<\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 11<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\tthat
\n\t\t\twe are doing what we ought to do?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson
\n<\/i>\u2014 Why, we must do what society requires of us.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 And must we do that, even when society requires something dissonant
\nwith our nature or repugnant to our convictions? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 I conceive so.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 And if society requires us to sacrifice our children or to compel a
\nwidow to burn herself we are bound to comply?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 No; we should only do what is just and good.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav
\n<\/i>\u2014 Then the fiat of society is not valid; duty really depends on something
\nquite different.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson
\n<\/i>\u2014 It appears so.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 Then what is your idea of that something quite different on which
\nduty depends?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 Would it be wrong to select morality?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav
\n<\/i>\u2014 Let us inquire. But before that is possible, let me know what morality is
\nor I shall not know my own meaning.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson
\n<\/i>\u2014 Morality is the conduct our ethical principles require of us. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 Take me with you. This ethical principle is then
\npersonal, not universal?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson
\n<\/i>\u2014 I think so. For different localities different ethics. I am not a bigot to
\nclaim infallibility for my own country.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav
\n<\/i>\u2014 So we must act in harmony with the code of ethics received as ideal by the
\nsociety we move in?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson
\n<\/i>\u2014 I suppose it comes to that.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 But, my dear Broome, does not that bring us back to your previous
\ntheory that we should do what society requires of us? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 I am
\npainfully afraid it does.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 And we are agreed that this is not an accurate plumb
\nline?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 Yes. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 You see the consequence?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 I see I must change my ground and say that we must do what our
\npersonal sense of the right and just requires of us.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 12<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 For example if my personal sense of the right and
\njust, tells me that to lie is meritorious, it is my duty to lie to the best of my
\nability.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson
\n<\/i>\u2014 But no one could possibly think that.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 I think that the soul of Ithacan Ulysses has not yet completed the
\ncycle of his transmigrations, nor would I wrong the author of the Hippias by
\nignoring his conclusions. Or why go to dead men for an example? The mould has
\nnot fallen on the musical lips of the Irish Plato nor is Dorian Gray forgotten on
\nthe hundred tongues of Rumour.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 If our sense of right is really so prone to error, we should not
\nrely upon it.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 Then, to quote Mrs
\n
\nMountstuart,<\/span> you have just ..succeeded in telling me nothing. Duty is not
\nbased on our personal sense of the right and just.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 I allow it is not.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav
\n<\/i>\u2014 But surely there is some species of touchstone by which we can discern
\nbetween the false and the true?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson
\n<\/i>\u2014 If there is I cannot discover it.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 Ah, but do try again. There is luck in odd numbers.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 The only other touchstone I can imagine is religion; and now I come
\nto think of it, religion is an infallible touchstone. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 I am glad
\nyou think so; for all I know at present you are very probably right. But have you
\nany reason for your conviction?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 A code of morality built upon religion has no commerce with the
\ndemands of society or our personal sense of the right and just, but is the very
\nlaw of God.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav
\n<\/i>\u2014 I will not at present deny the reality of a personal God endowed with
\npassions & prejudices; that is not indispensable to our argument. But are there
\nnot many religions and have they not all their peculiar schemes of morality?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson
\n<\/i>\u2014 No doubt, but some are more excellent than others. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 And do
\nyou cherish the opinion that your own  <\/i>
\n\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 13<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tpeculiar
\n\t\t\tcreed \u2014 I believe it to be Christianity without Christ \u2014 is
\n\t\t\tindubitably the most excellent of all religions?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014 By far the most excellent.<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav
\n<\/i>\u2014 And your own ethical scheme, again the Christian without the emotional
\nelement, the best of all ethical schemes?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 I have no doubt of it.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav
\n<\/i>\u2014 And they are many who dissent from you, are there not? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 Oh
\nwithout doubt.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 And you would impose your ethical scheme on them?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 No; but I imagine it to be the goal whither all humanity is
\ntending.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 That is a very different question. Do you think that when a man’s
\nlife is in harmony with his own creed, but not with yours, he is therefore not
\nvirtuous, or in your own phrase, deviates from his duty?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 God forbid! <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 Then you really do believe that a man
\ndoes his duty when he lives in harmony with the ethical scheme patronised by his
\nown religion, as a Mohammadan if he follows the injunctions of the Prophet, a
\nHindu if he obeys the Vedic Scriptures, a Christian, if his life is a long self\u2014
\ndenial.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 That I admit. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 Then the ethical scheme of Islam is
\nas much thievery law of God, as the ethical scheme of Christianity, and the
\nmorals of Hinduism are not less divine than the morals of Islam.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 I hardly understand how you arrive at that conclusion.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 Did you not say, Broome, that religion is an infallible test of
\nduty, because it is the very law of God?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014\u2014\u2014 I still say so.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav
\n<\/i>\u2014 And that everyone must adopt his own religion as the test of what he should
\ndo or not do?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson
\n<\/i>\u2014 I cannot deny it.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014\u2014 Then must you not either admit the reason to be <\/span>
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage \u2013 14<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\n
\ninvalid or that anyone’s peculiar religion, to whatever species it may belong, is the very law of God?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I prefer the
\nsecond branch of the dilemma.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— But tho’
\nevery religion is the very law of God,
\nnevertheless you will often find one enjoining a practice which to another is an abomination. And can God contradict himself?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— You mistake
\nthe point. Islam, Hinduism, indeed
\nall Scriptural religions were given, because the peoples professing them were not capable of receiving a higher light.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Is not God
\nomnipotent?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— A limited God
\nis not God at all. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Then was it
\nnot within his omnipotent power to so guide the world, that there would be no necessity for different
\ndealings with different peoples?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— It was within
\nhis power, but he did not choose. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Exactly: he
\ndid not choose. He of set purpose preferred a method which he knew would bring him to falsehood
\nand injustice.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— What words
\nyou use! The truth is merely that
\nGod set man to develop under certain conditions and suited his methods to those conditions.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Oh, then God
\nis practically a scientist making an experiment; and you demand for him reverence and obedience
\nfrom the creature vivisected. Then I can only see one other explanation. Having created certain conditions he could not
\nreceive the homage of mankind without various and mutually dissentient revelations of his will.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nNow imagine a physician with theosophical power who for  purposes of gain so modified the climatic features of Judaea
\n& Arabia that the same disease required two distinct methods of treatment in the one & the other. This he does wilfully and
\ndeliberately and with foreknowledge of the result. As soon as his end is assured, our physician goes to Judaea and gives the people
\na drug which, he tells them, is the sole remedy for their disease, but all others are the property of quacks and will eventually
\ninduce an increase of the malady. Five years later the same   <\/span> <\/font>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 15 <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n

\nphysician goes
\noff to Arabia and here he gives them another drug of an
\naccurately opposite nature about which he imparts the same
\ninstructions. Now if we remember that the climatic conditions which
\nnecessitated the deception, were the deliberate work of the
\ndeceiver, shall we not call that physician a liar and an impostor? Is
\nGod a liar? or an impostor? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— We must not
\nmeasure the Almighty by our poor mortal
\nstandards.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Pshaw,
\nBroome, if the legislator overrides his own laws, how
\ncan you hope that others will observe them? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— But if God in
\nhis incomprehensible wisdom and goodness —<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nIncomprehensible indeed! If there is any meaning in words, the
\nGod you have described, can neither be wise nor good. Will you
\nshow me the flaw in my position? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I
\ncannot discover it.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Then your
\nsuspicion is born of your disgust at the conclusion
\nto which I have forced you. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I am afraid
\nit is. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nWell, shall we go on with the discussion or should I stop here?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Certainly let
\nus go on. I need not shy at a truth however
\ndisagreeable. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nFirst let me give you a glass of this champagne. I do not keep
\nany of those infernal concoctions of alcohol and perdition of
\nwhich you in Europe are so enamoured. Now here is the
\nconclusion I draw from all that we have been saying: There are two
\npositions open to you. One is that of the fanatic. You may say that
\nyou and those who believe with you are the specially chosen
\nof God to be the receptacles of his grace and that all who
\nhave heard and rejected his gospel together with those who have
\nnot so much as imagined its possibility must share a similar
\nfate and go into the outer darkness where there is wailing and
\ngnashing of teeth. If that is the line you take up, my answer is
\nthat God is an unjust God and the wise will prefer the torments of
\nthe damned to any communion with him. The fanatic of
\ncourse would be ready with his retort that the potter  
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 16 <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n
\nhas a right to
\ndo what he will with his vessels. At that point I usually abandon
\nthe conversation; to tell him that a metaphor is no argument
\nwould be futile. Even if he saw it, he would reply that God’s ways
\nare incomprehensible and therefore we should<\/font>
\naccept them
\nwithout a murmur. That is a position which I have not the patience
\nto undermine, nor if I had it, have I sufficient<\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n
\nself-control to
\npreserve my gravity under the ordeal. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I
\nat least, Keshav, am not in danger of burdening your patience. I
\nhave no wish to evade you by such a back-door as that.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Then is it
\nnot plain to you, that you must abandon the
\nreligious basis as unsound? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Yes, for you
\nhave convinced me that I have been talking nonsense
\nthe whole evening.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Not at all,
\nBroome: only you like most men have not accustomed
\nyourself to clear and rigorous thought. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I am afraid,
\nlogic is not sufficiently studied. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Is
\nit not studied too much? Logic dwindles the river of thought
\ninto a mere canal. The logician thinks so accurately that he
\nis seldom right. No, what we want is some more of that sense
\nwhich it is a mockery to call common. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nBut if we were to eliminate the divine element from the
\nbalance, would not religion be a possible basis? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nNo, for religious ethics would then be a mere expression of
\nwill on the part of Society. And that is open to the criticism that
\nthe commands of Society may be revolting to the right and just
\nor inconsistent with the harmony of life. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nBut supposing everyone to interpret for himself the ethics
\napproved by his own creed? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nThe Inquisitors did that. Do you consider the result justified
\nthe method? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nThe Inquisitors?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— They were a
\nclass of men than whom you will find none more
\nscrupulous or in their private lives more gentle, chivalrous & honourable, or in their public conduct more obedient to their
\nsense of duty. They tortured the bodies of a few, that the souls
\nof thousands might live. They did murder in the  <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 17<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\nsight of the
\nLord and looked upon their handiwork and saw that it was good. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— My dear
\nKeshav, surely that is extravagant. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nWhy, do you imagine that they were actuated by any other
\nmotive? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nYes, by the desire to preserve the integrity of the Church.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— And is not
\nthat the first duty of every Christian? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Only by the
\npermissible method of persuasion. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nThat is your opinion but was it theirs? Duty is a phantasm spawned
\nin the green morass of human weakness & ignorance, but
\nperpetuated by vague thought and vaguer sentiment. And so
\nlong as we are imperatively told to do our duty, without knowing
\nwhy we should do it, the vagueness of private judgment, the
\ncruelty of social coercion will be the sole arbiters and the saint
\nwill be a worse enemy of virtue than the sinner. Will you have
\nanother cigarette? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nThanks, I will. But, Keshav, I
\nam not disposed to leave the discussion with this purely
\nnegative result. Surely there is some guiding principle which should
\nmodify and harmonize our actions. Or are you favourable to an
\nanarchy in morals?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— No, Broome. If culture and taste were universal,
\nprinciple would then be a superfluous note in the world’s composition. But so
\nlong as men are crude, without tact, formless, incapable of a
\nbalanced personality, so long the banner of the ideal must be waved
\nobtrusively before the eyes of men, and education remain a
\nnecessity, so long must the hateful phrase, a higher morality, mean
\nsomething more than empty jargon of socialists. Yes, I think
\nthere is that guiding principle you speak of, or at least we may
\narrive at something like it, if we look long enough. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nThen do look for it, Keshav. I am sure you will find something
\noriginal and beautiful. Come, I will be idle tonight and
\nabandon the pursuit of knowledge to waste time in the pursuit
\nof thought. Begin and I will follow my leader. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nBefore I begin, let me remove one or two of those popular
\nfallacies born of indolence which encumber the wings  <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 18<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nof the
\nspeculator. And first let me say, I will not talk of duty: it is a word I do
\nnot like, for it is always used in antagonism to pleasure, and
\nbrings back the noisome savour of the days when to do what I was
\ntold, was held out as my highest legitimate aspiration. I
\nwill use instead the word virtue, whose inherent meaning is
\nmanliness, in other words, the perfect evolution by the human being
\nof the inborn qualities and powers native to his humanity.<\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n
\nAnother thing I
\nwould like to avoid is the assumption that there is
\nsomewhere and somehow an ideal morality, which draws an absolute and
\na sharp distinction between good and evil. Thus it is easy to
\nsay that chastity is good, licence is evil. But what if someone were to
\nprotest that this is a mistake, that chastity is bad, licence is
\ngood. How are you going to refute him? If you appeal to
\nauthority, he will deny that your authority is valid; if you quote
\nreligion, he will remind you that your religion is one of a multitude; if
\nyou talk of natural perception, he will retort that natural
\nperception cancels itself by arriving at opposite results. How will you
\nunseat him from his position? <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nYes, you can show that good is profitable, while evil is hurtful.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— You mean the
\nappeal to utility? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Yes.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— That is
\nwithout doubt an advance. Now can you show that good
\nis profitable, that is to say, has good effects, while evil is
\nhurtful, that is to say, has bad effects? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Easily. Take
\nyour instance of chastity and licence. One is the
\nground-work of that confidence which is the basis of marriage and
\ntherefore the keystone of society; the other kills confidence and
\ninfects the community with a bad example.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— You fly too
\nfast for me, Broome. You say chastity is the basis of
\nmarriage? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Surely you
\nwill not deny it? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nAnd licence in one leads to prevalent unchastity? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— It has that
\ntendency. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nAnd you think you have proved chastity to be profitable and
\nlicence hurtful?  <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 19<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— <\/span> <\/font>
\n
\nWhy, yes<\/font>.
\n<\/font>Do not you? <\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nNo, my friend; for I have not convinced myself that marriage is
\na good effect and prevalent unchastity a bad effect.<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Only paradox
\ncan throw any doubt on that. Assuredly you will
\nnot deny that without marriage and public decency, society
\nis unimaginable? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— I
\nsuppose you will allow that in Roman society under the
\nEmperors marriage was extant? And yet will you tell me that in those
\nages chastity was the basis of marriage? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I should say
\nthat marriage in the real sense of the word was not
\nextant.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Then what
\nbecomes of your postulate that without marriage and
\npublic decency society is unimaginable? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Can you
\nbestow the name on the world of Nero & Caracalla?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Certainly, if
\nI understand the significance of the word. Wherever
\nthe mutual dependence of men builds up a community
\ncemented by a chain of rights and liabilities, that, I imagine, is a
\nsociety. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Certainly,
\nthat is a society. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nAnd will you then hesitate to concede the name to imperial
\nItaly? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nYes, but you will not deny that from the unreality of marriage and
\nthe impudent disregard of common decency, — at once its
\ncause and effect — there grew up a prevalence of moral
\ncorruption, but for which the Roman world would not have
\nsuccumbed with such nerveless ease to Scythia and its populous
\nmultitude. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nWhat then? I do not deny it. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Was not that
\na bad effect? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— By
\nbad, I presume you mean undesirable? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— That of
\ncourse. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nPerhaps it was, but should we not say that Rome fell because
\nbarbarism was strong not because she was feeble? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nRome uncorrupted was able to laugh at similar perils.   <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 20<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Then to have
\nRome safe, you would have had her remain
\nbarbarous? <\/span> <\/font> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Did I say so?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— You implied
\nit. In Rome the triumphal chariot of Corruption was
\ndrawn by the winged horses, Culture and Art. And it is always
\nso. From the evergreen foliage of the Periclean era there
\nbloomed that gorgeous and overblown flower, Athens of the
\nphilosophers, a corrupt luxurious city, the easy vassal of Macedon, the
\neasier slave of Rome. From the blending of Hellenic with
\nPersian culture was derived that Oriental pomp and lavish
\nmagnificence which ruined the kingdoms of the East. And Rome, their
\nconqueror, she too when the Roman in her died and the Italian
\nlived, when the city of wolves became the abode of men, bartered
\nher savage prosperity for a splendid decline. Yes, the fullness
\nof the flower is the sure prelude of decay. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nLook at the
\nIndia of Vikramaditya. How gorgeous was her
\nbeauty! how Olympian the
\nvoices of her poets! how sensuous the pencil of her painters! how languidly
\nvoluptuous the outlines of her
\nsculpture! In those days every man was marvellous to himself and
\nmany were marvellous to their fellows; but the mightiest marvel
\nof all were the philosophers. What a Philosophy was that!
\nFor she scaled the empyrean on the winged sandals of
\nmeditation, soared above the wide fires of the sun and above the
\nwhirling stars, up where the flaming walls of the universe are
\nguiltless of wind or cloud, and there in the burning core of
\nexistence saw the face of the most high God. She saw God and
\ndid not perish; rather fell back to earth, not blasted with
\nexcess of light, but with a mystic burden on her murmuring lips
\ntoo large for human speech to utter or for the human brain
\nto understand. Such was she then. Yet five rolling
\ncenturies had not passed when sleepless, all-beholding Surya saw the
\nsons of Mahomet pour like locusts over the green fields of her
\nglory and the wrecks of that mighty fabric whirling down the rapids
\nof barbarism into the shores of night. They were barbarous,
\ntherefore mighty: we were civilized, therefore feeble. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— But was not
\nyour civilization premature? The  <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 21<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nbuilding too
\nhastily raised disintegrates and collapses, for it has the seeds of
\ndeath in its origin. May not the utilitarian justly<\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n
\ncondemn it as
\nevil? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— What the utilitarian may not justly do, it is beyond the limits
\nof my intellect to discover. Had it not been for these premature
\ncivilizations, had it not been for the Athens of Plato, the Rome
\nof the Caesars, the India of Vikramaditya, what would the world
\nbe now? It was premature, because barbarism was yet
\npredominant in the world; and it is wholly due to our premature
\nefflorescence that your utilitarians can mount the high stool of
\nfolly and defile the memory of the great. When I remember that, I
\ndo not think I can deny that we were premature. I trust and
\nbelieve that the civilization of the future will not come too late rather
\nthan too early. No, the utilitarian with his sordid creed may exalt
\nthe barbarian and spit his livid contempt upon culture, but the
\ngreat heart of the world will ever beat more responsive to
\nthe flame-winged words of the genius than to the musty musings of
\nthe moralists. It is better to be great and perish, than to be
\nlittle and live. But where was I when the wind of tirade carried me out
\nof my course? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nYou were breaching the defences of utilitarian morality.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Ah, I remember. What I mean is this; the utilitarian arrives
\nat his results by an arbitrary application of the epithets "good<\/i>"
\nand "bad<\/i>".1<\/sup>
\nThis<\/span> mistake is of perpetual occurrence in Bentham
\nand gives the basis for the most monstrous and shocking of his
\ntheories. For example the servitude of women is justified by
\nthe impossibility of marriage without it. Again he condemns theft
\nby a starving man as a heinous offence because it is likely to
\ndisturb security. He quite forgets to convince us, as the author of
\na system professedly grounded on logic should
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n1<\/sup> The
\nfollowing passage was written at the top of the manuscript page. Its place of<\/i>
\ninsertion was not marked:<\/i>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nWhen we say a
\nfruit is wholesome or unwholesome, we mean that it is harmless & nutritious food
\nor that it tends to dysentery & colic, but when we say that anything is good or bad,
\nwe apply the epithets like tickets without inquiring what we mean by them; we have no
\nmoral touchstone that tells gold from spurious metal. <\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 22<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nhave done, that
\nthe survival of marriage is a desirable effect or property more
\nvaluable than life.<\/span><\/font> <\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I confess
\nthat Bentham on those two subjects is far too cavalier
\nand offhand to please me, but the utilitarian system can stand
\non another basis than Bentham supplies. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nYours is a curious position, Broome. You are one of those who
\nwould expunge the part of Hamlet from the play that bears his
\nname. Your religion is Christianity without Christ, your morality
\nBenthamism without Bentham. Nevertheless my guns are so
\npointed that they will breach any wall you choose to set up. For this
\nis common to all utilitarians that they lose sight of a paramount
\nconsideration: the epithets "good<\/i>"
\nand "bad<\/i>" are purely
\nconventional and have no absolute sense, but their meaning may be
\nshifted at the will of the speaker. Indeed they have been the
\nroot of so many revolting ideas and of so many and such
\nmonstrous social tyrannies, that I should not be sorry to see them
\nexpelled from the language, as unfit to be in the company of
\ndecent words. Why do you smile? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— The novelty
\nof the idea amused me. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nYes, I know that "original<\/i>"
\nand "fool<\/i>" are synonymous in the
\nworld’s vocabulary. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nThat was a nasty one for me. However I am afraid I shall be
\ncompelled to agree with you. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Do you admit that there is only one alternative, faith
\nwithout reason or the recognition of morality as a conventional
\nterm without any absolute meaning? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I should
\nrather say that morality is the idea of what is just and
\nright in vogue among a given number of people.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— You have
\nexactly described it. Are you content to take this as
\nyour touchstone? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Neither this,
\nnor faith without reason. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nTwo positions abandoned at a blow? That is more than I had
\nthe right to expect. Now, as the time is slipping by, let us set
\nout on the discovery of some law, or should I not rather say, some
\nindicating tendency by which we may arrive at a principle of
\nlife? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I am anxious
\nto hear it.  
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 23<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Let us
\nfurnish ourselves with another glass of claret for the
\nvoyage. You will have some? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Thanks.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— My first
\ndifficulty when I set out on a voyage of discovery is to
\nselect the most probable route. I look at my chart and I see one
\nmarked justice along which the trade winds blow; but whoever has
\nweighed anchor on this path has arrived like Columbus at
\nanother than the intended destination, without making half so
\nvaluable a discovery. Another route is called "beauty" and
\nalong this no-one has yet sailed. An Irish navigator has indeed
\nattempted it and made some remarkable discoveries, but he has
\nclothed his account in such iridescent wit and humour, that our good
\nserious English audience either grin foolishly at him from a vague
\nidea that they ought to feel amused or else shake their
\nheads and grumble that the fellow is corrupting the youth and
\nruining their good old Saxon gravity; why he actually makes
\npeople laugh at the beliefs they have been taught by their
\nvenerable and aged grandmothers. But as for believing his traveller’s
\ntales — they believe them not a whit. Possibly if we who do not
\npossess this dangerous gift of humour, were to follow the path
\ncalled beauty, we might hit the target of our desires: if not
\nwe might at least discover things wonderful and new to repay us
\nfor our labour. And so on with other possible routes. Now
\nwhich shall we choose? for much hangs on our selection. Shall
\nwe say justice? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nLet me know first what justice is.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— I do not
\nknow, but I think no-one would hesitate to describe it
\nas forbearance from interfering with the rights of others.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— That is a
\ngood description.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Possibly, but
\nso long as we do not know what are the rights of
\nothers, the description, however good, can have no meaning.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Can we not discover, what are the rights of others?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— We have been
\ntrying for the last three-thousand years; with how
\nmuch or how little success, I do not like to say.  
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 24<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Then let us
\ntry another tack. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nCan you tell me which one we should choose? My own idea is
\nthat the word "beauty<\/i>"
\nis replete with hopeful possibilities. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Is not that
\nbecause it is used in a hundred different senses?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— I own that
\nthe word, as used today, is like so many others a
\nrelative term. But if we were to fix a permanent and absolute
\nmeaning on it, should we not say that beauty is that which fills
\nus with a sense of satisfying pleasure and perfect fitness?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Yes, I think
\nbeauty must certainly be judged by its effects.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— But are there
\nnot minds so moulded that they are dead to all
\nbeauty and find more charm in the showy and vulgar than in what is
\ngenuinely perfect and symmetrical? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— There can be
\nno doubt of that. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nThen beauty still remains a relative term? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Yes.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— That is
\nunfortunate. Let us try and find some other test for
\nit. And in order to arrive at this, should we not take something
\nrecognized by all to be beautiful and examine in what its beauty
\nlies? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nThat is distinctly our best course. Let us take the commonest type
\nof beauty, a rose. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nThen in what lies the beauty of a rose if not in its symmetry?
\nWhy has the whole effect that satisfying completeness which
\nsubjugates the senses, if not because Nature has blended in harmonious
\nproportion the three elements of beauty; colour, perfume, and form? Now beauty
\nmay exist separately in any
\ntwo of these elements and where it does so, the accession of
\nthe third would probably mar the perfection of that species
\nof beauty; as in sculpture where form in its separate
\nexistence finds a complete expression and is blended harmoniously
\nwith perfume — for character or emotion is the perfume of the
\nhuman form; just as sound is the perfume of poetry and music
\n— but if a sculptor tints his statue, the effect  
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 25<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\ndispleases us,
\nbecause it seems gaudy or tinsel, or in plain words
\ndisproportionate. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\nIn some cases
\nbeauty seems to have only one of these elements, for example frankincense and
\nmusic which seem to possess perfume
\nonly, but in reality we shall find that they have each one or both of
\nthe other elements. For incense would not be half so beautiful, if
\nwe did not see the curling folds of smoke floating like loose
\ndrapery in the air, nor would music be music if not harmoniously
\nblended with form and colour, or as we usually call them,
\ntechnique and meaning. Again there are other cases in which beauty
\nundoubtedly has one only of the three elements: and such are
\ncertain scents like myrrh, eucalyptus and others, which possess
\nneither colour nor form, isolated hues such as the green and purple
\nand violet painted on floor and walls by the afternoon sun
\nand architectural designs which have no beauty but the isolated
\nbeauty of form. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\nThe criticism of
\nages has shown a fit appreciation of these harmonies by
\nadjudging the highest scale of beauty to those forms which
\nblend the three elements and the lowest to those which boast only
\nof one. Thus sculpture is a far nobler art than architecture,
\nfor while both may compass an equal perfection of form,
\nsculpture alone possesses the larger harmony derived by the union of
\nform and perfume. Similarly the human form is more divine
\nthan sculpture because it has the third element, colour; and the
\npainting of figures is more beautiful than the portrayal of
\nlandscapes, because the latter is destitute of perfume, while figures of
\nlife have always that character or emotion which we have called
\nthe perfume of the living form. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\nAgain if we take
\ntwo forms of beauty otherwise exactly on the same level,
\nwe shall find that the more beautiful in which the three elements
\nare more harmoniously blended. As for instance a perfect human
\nform and a perfect poem; whichever we may admire, we shall
\nfind our reason, if we probe for it, to be that the whole is more
\nperfectly blended and the result a more satisfying completeness. If we think of
\nall this, it will assuredly not be too rash to describe beauty
\nby calling the general effect harmony and the  
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 26<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nulterior cause
\nproportion. What is your opinion, Broome? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nYour idea is certainly remarkable and novel, but the language you
\nhave selected is so intricate that I am in the dark as to
\nwhether it admits of invariable application.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— The usual
\neffect of endeavouring to be too explicit is to
\nmystify the hearer. I will try to dive into less abysmal depths. Can you
\ntell me, why a curve is considered more beautiful than a
\nstraight line? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— No, except
\nthat the effect is more pleasing. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Ah
\nyes, but why should it be more pleasing? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I cannot
\ntell. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— I
\nwill tell you. It is because a curve possesses that variety which is
\nthe soul of proportion. It rises, swells and falls with an exact
\npropriety — it is at once various and regular as rolling water;
\nwhile the stiff monotony of a straight line disgusts the soul by its
\nmeaningless rigidity and want of proportion. On the other hand a
\nsystem of similar curves, unless very delicately managed, cannot
\npossibly suggest the idea of beauty: and that is because there is
\nno proportion, for proportion, I would impress on you, consists
\nin a regular variety. And thus a straight line, tho’ in itself
\nugly, can be very beautiful if properly combined with curves.
\nHere again the like principle applies. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\nDo you now
\nunderstand? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Yes, I admit that your theory is wonderfully complete and
\nconsistent. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— If
\nyou want a farther illustration, I will give you one. And just as
\nbefore we selected the most commonly received type of beauty,
\nI will now select the most perfect: and that, I think, is a
\nperfect poem. Would you not agree with me? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nNo, I should give the palm to a perfectly beautiful face.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— I think you
\nare wrong. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Have you any
\nreason for thinking so? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nYes, and to me a very satisfying reason. The three elements of
\nbeauty do not blend with absolutely perfect harmony in a human face.
\nHave you not frequently noticed that those faces which
\nexpress the most soul, the most genius, the most  
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 27<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ncharacter, are
\nnot perfectly harmonious in their form? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nYes, the exceptions are rare.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— And the
\nreason is that to emphasize the character, the divine
\nartist has found himself compelled to emphasize certain of the
\nfeatures above the others, for instance, the lips, the eyes, the
\nforehead, the chin, and to give them an undue prominence which
\ndestroys that proportion without which there can be no
\nperfect harmony. Do you perceive my meaning? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Yes, and I do
\nnot think your conclusions can be disputed.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— In a
\nperfectly beautiful face the emotion has to be modified and
\ndiscouraged, so as not to disturb the harmony of form: but in
\na perfectly beautiful poem the maker has indeed to blend with
\nexquisite nicety the three elements of beauty, but though the
\ncolour may be gorgeous, the emotion piercingly vivid, the form
\ndeliriously lovely, yet each of these has so just a share of the effect, that
\nwe should find it difficult to add to or to detract from any one of
\nthem without fatally injuring the perfection of the whole.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nAnd so it is
\nwith every form of beauty that is not originally
\nimperfect; to
\ndetract or add would be alike fatal; for alteration means abolition.
\nEach syllable is a key-stone and being removed, the whole
\nimposing structure crumbles in a moment to the ground.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nCan we better
\ndescribe this perfect blending of parts than by the word
\nproportion? or is its entire effect anything but
\nharmony?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— There are
\nindeed no better words.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— And this
\nharmony runs through the warp and woof of Nature.
\nLook at the stars, the brain of heaven, as Meredith calls
\nthem. How they march tossing on high their golden censers
\nto perfume night with the frankincense of beauty! They are a host
\nof winged insects crawling on the blue papyrus
\nof heaven, a
\nswarm of golden gnats, a cloud of burning dust, a wonderful
\neffect of sparkling atoms caught and perpetuated by the
\ninstantaneous pencil of Nature. And yet they are none of all these,
\nbut a vast and interdependent economy of worlds. <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 28<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nThose burning
\nglobes as they roll in silent orbits through the infinite inane,
\nare separated by an eternity of space. They are<\/span><\/font>
\nindividual and
\nalone, but from each to each thrill influences unfathomed and
\nunconscious, marvellous magnetisms, curious<\/font>
\nrepulsions that check like
\nadverse gales or propel like wind in bellying canvas, and bind these solitary
\nsplendours into one supernal harmony
\nof worlds. The solar harmony we know. How gloriously
\nperfect it is, how united in isolation, how individual in<\/font>
\nunity! How star
\nanswers to star and the seven wandering dynasts of destiny as
\nthey roll millions of leagues apart, drag with them<\/font>
\nthe invisible
\nmagnetic cord which binds them for ever to the sun. We believe that
\nthose lights we call fixed are each a sun with a<\/font>
\nrhythmic harmony
\nof planets dancing in immeasurable gyrations around one
\nimmovable, immortal star. More, is it extravagant<\/font>
\nto guess that
\nwhat to us is fixed, is a planet to God? Perhaps to the
\ninhabitants of the moon this tumbling earth of ours is a<\/font>
\nfixed and
\nconstant light, and perhaps the glorious ball of fire we worship as
\nthe Lord of Light, is the satrap of some majesty<\/font>
\nmore luminous
\nand more large. Thus we may conceive of the universe as a
\nseries of subordinate harmonies, each perfect in<\/font>
\nitself and
\nhelping to consummate the harmony which is one and universal.<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\nWell may the
\npoet give the stars that majestic synonym <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nThe army of
\nunalterable law. <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nBut the law that
\ngoverns the perishable flower, the ephemeral moth, is not
\nmore changeful than the law that disciplines the
\nmovements of the
\neternal fires. The rose burns in her season; the moth lives
\nin his hour: not even the wind bloweth where it listeth unless
\nit preserve the boundaries prescribed by Nature. Each is a
\nseparate syllable in the grand poem of the universe: and it is all so
\ninalterable because it is so perfect. Yes, Tennyson was right, tho’
\nlike most poets, he knew not what he said, when he wrote those
\nlines on the flower in the crannies: if we know what the flower
\nis, we know also what God is and what man. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I begin to
\ncatch a glimpse of your drift. But is there no
\ndiscordant element in this universal harmony? <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 29<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— There is. As
\nsoon as we come to life, we find that God’s
\nimagination is no longer unerring; we almost think that he has
\nreached a conception which it is beyond his power to execute. It
\nis true that there are grand and beautiful lines in the vast epic
\nof life, but others there are so unmusical and discordant that
\nwe can scarcely believe but that Chance was the author of
\nexistence. The beautiful lines are no doubt wonderful; among the
\ninsects the peacock-winged butterfly, the light spendthrift of
\nunclouded hours; the angry wasp, that striped and perilous
\ntiger of the air; the slow murmuring bee, an artist in honey and
\nwith the true artist’s indolence outside his art: and then the
\nbirds — the tawny eagle shouting his clangorous aspiration
\nagainst the sun; the cruel shrike, his talons painted in murder; the
\nmurmuring dove robed in the pure and delicate hue of
\nconstancy: the inspired skylark with his matin-song descending like a
\nrain of fire from the blushing bosom of the dawn. Nay the beasts
\ntoo are not without their fine individualities: the fire-eyed lion, the creeping
\npanther, the shy fawn, the majestic elephant;
\neach fill a line of the great poem and by contrast enhance harmony. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nBut what shall
\nwe say of the imaginations that inspire nothing but disgust,
\nthe grub, the jackal, the vulture? And when
\nwe come to man,
\nwe are half inclined to throw up our theory in despair. For
\nwe only see a hideous dissonance, a creaking melody, a
\nghastly failure. We see the philosopher wearing a crown of thorns
\nand the fool robed in purple and fine linen: the artist
\ndrudging at a desk and the average driving his quill thro’ reams of
\ninnocent paper: we see genius thrust aside into the hedges and
\nstupidity driving her triumphal chariot on the beaten paths of social
\nexistence. Once we might have said that nature like a novice in art was
\nrising through failures and imperfections into an artistic consummation and that
\nwhen Evolution had exhausted her
\nenergies, her eyes would gaze on a perfect universe. But when we come
\nto the human being, her most ambitious essay, the
\ncynicism of frustrated hope steals slowly over us. I am reminded of some
\nlines in a sonnet more remarkable for power than for
\nfelicitous expression.  
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 30<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nShe crowned her
\nwild work with one foulest wrong <\/span> <\/p>\n

\nWhen first she
\nlighted on a seeming goal<\/span><\/font> <\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\nAnd darkly
\nblundered on man’s suffering soul. <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nIt is as if
\nnature in admitting action into her universe were in
\nthe position of
\na poet who trusted blindly to inspiration without subjecting his
\nwork to the instincts of art or the admonitions of the critical
\nfaculty; but once dissatisfied with his work begins to pass his pen
\nrepeatedly thro’ his after performances, until he seems at last
\nto have lighted on a perfect inspiration. His greatest essay
\ncompleted he suddenly discovers that one touch of realism
\nrunning thro’ the whole work has fatally injured its beauty.
\nSimilarly Nature in moulding man, made a mistake of the first
\nimportance. She gave him the faculty of reason and by the use of her
\ngift he has stultified the beauty of her splendid imaginations. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\nTennyson, by one
\nof his felicitous blunders, has again hit
\nupon the truth
\nwhen he conceives the solemn wail of a heaven-born spirit in
\nthe agony of his disillusioning. <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nI saw him in the
\nshining of his stars, <\/span> <\/p>\n

\nI marked him in
\nthe flowering of his fields, <\/span> <\/p>\n

\nBut in his ways
\nwith men I found him not. <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nHow true is
\nevery syllable! God burns in the star, God blossoms
\nin the rose: the
\ncloud is the rushing dust of his chariot, the sea is the spuming
\nmirror of his moods. His breath whistles in the wind, his
\npassion reddens in the sunset, his anguish drops in the rain. The
\ndarkness is the soft fall of his eyelashes over the purple magnificence of
\nhis eyes: the sanguine dawn is his flushed and happy face as he
\nleaves the flowery pillow of sleep; the moonlight is nothing but
\nthe slumberous glint of his burning tresses when thro’ them
\nglimmer the heaving breasts of Eternity. What to him are the petty
\nimaginings of human aspiration; our puny frets, our pitiable
\nfuries, our melodramatic passions? If he deigns to think of us, it
\nis as incompetent actors who have wholly misunderstood the
\nbent of our powers. The comedian rants in the vein of Bombastes;
\nthe tragic artist plays the buffoon in the pauses of  
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 31<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\na pantomime, and
\nthe genius that might have limned the passion of a Romeo,
\nmoulds the lumpish ineptitude of a Cloten. God<\/span><\/font>
\nlifting his
\nhappy curls from the white bosom of Beauty, shoots the lightning of
\nhis glance upon our antics and we hear his<\/font>
\nmockery hooting
\nat us in the thunder. Why should he squander a serious
\nthought on a farce so absurd and extravagant?<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— And are these
\nthe ultimate syllables of Philosophy?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— You are
\nimpatient, Broome. What I have arrived at is the
\ndiscovery that human life is, if not the only, at any rate the
\nprincipal note in Nature that jars with the grand idea underlying her
\nharmony. Do you agree with me? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— He would be a
\nhopeless optimist who did not. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nAnd are you of the opinion that it is the exercise by man of his
\nwill-power to which we owe the discord? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nNo, I would throw the blame on Nature.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— After the
\nexample of Adam? "The woman tempted me and I
\ndid eat." I too am a son of Adam and would throw the blame
\non Nature. But once her fault is admitted, has not the human
\nwill been manifestly her accomplice? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Her
\ninstrument rather. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nVery well, her instrument. You admit that? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Yes.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Then if the
\nhuman will, prompted by Nature or her servant,
\nFalse Reason, has marred the universal harmony, may not the
\nhuman will, prompted by Right Reason who is also the servant of
\nNature, mend the harmony he has marred? Or if that puzzles
\nyou, let me put the question in another form. Does not a wilful
\nchoice of sensuality imply an alternative of purity? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— It
\ndoes.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— And a wilful
\nchoice of unbelief an alternative of belief? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Yes.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Then on the
\nsame principle, if the human will chose to mar the
\nharmony of nature, was it not within its power to choose the
\nopposite course and fulfil the harmony? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Certainly
\nthat follows.  
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 32<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— And through
\nignorance and the promptings of False Reason we
\npreferred to spoil rather than to fulfil? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Yes.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— And we can
\nmend what we mar? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Sometimes.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Well then, can we not choose to mend the harmony we
\noriginally chose to mar? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I
\ndo not think it probable.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— An admission
\nthat it is possible, is all I want to elicit from you. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I do not know
\nthat. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nHave not some episodes of the great epic rung more in unison
\nwith the grand harmony than others? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nYes; the old-world Greeks were more in tune with the Universe
\nthan we. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nThe name of the episode does not signify. You admit a race or
\nan epoch which has fallen into the harmony more than
\nothers? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— Freely.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Then as you
\nadmit the more and the less, will you not admit that the
\nmore may become in its turn the less — that there may
\nbe the yet more? May we not attain to a more perfect harmony
\nwith the universe than those who have been most in harmony
\nwith it? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— It is
\npossible. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— If
\nit is possible, should we not go on and inquire how it is
\npossible? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nThat is the next step.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— And when we
\nhave found an answer to our inquiries, shall
\nwe not have solved this difficult question of a new basis for
\nmorality? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nYes, we shall: for I see now that to be in harmony with beauty, or,
\nin other words, to take the guiding principle of the universe as
\nthe guiding principle of human life, is the final and perfect aim
\nof the human species. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>—
\nBroome, you have the scent of a sleuth-hound. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>— I am afraid
\nthat is ironical. You must remember  
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 33<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthat we are not
\nall philosophers yet. Still I should have liked to see how the idea
\ncame out in practice.<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— If you can
\nspare me another night or it may be two, we will
\npursue the idea through its evolutions. I am deeply interested, for
\nto me as to you it is perfectly novel. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nShall you be free on Thursday night?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— As free as
\nthe wind. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>—
\nThen I will come. Goodnight.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>— Goodnight,
\nand God reward you for giving me your company.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nEnd of the Book First  <\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\nBook Two <\/a><\/b><\/span><\/font>
\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nKeshav Ganesh [Desai] \u2014 Trevor \u2014 Broome Wilson<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Ah, Broome, so the magnetism of thought has broken the
\nchains of duty? May I introduce you? Mr.. Trevor of Kings, Mr.. Broome Wilson of
\nJesus. Would you like wine or coffee? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014 Perhaps for an evening of metaphysics wine is the most
\nappropriate prelude.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 You agree then with the Scythians who made a point of
\ndeliberating when drunk? They were perhaps right; one is inclined to think that
\nmost men are wiser drunk than sober. I have been endeavouring to explain my line
\nof argument to Trevor, I am afraid with indifferent success. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014 Can I do anything to help you?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 I have no doubt you can. Would you mind stating your
\ndifficulty, Trevor? I think you allow that every other basis of morality is
\nunsound but uphold the utilitarian model as perfectly logical and consistent. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 Yes, that is what I hold to, and I do not think, Desai,
\nyou have at all shaken its validity.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 You do not admit that the epithets "good" and "bad"
\nhave a purely conventional force. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 Yes, I admit that, but I add that we have fixed a
\ndefinite meaning on the epithets and adhered to it all through our system.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 If so, you are fortunate. Can you tell me the definite
\nmeaning to which you refer? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 The basis of our system is this, that whatever is
\nprofitable, is good, whatever is the reverse, is evil. Is not that an
\nunassailable basis?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 I do not think so; for two ambiguous words you have
\nmerely substituted two others only less ambiguous. <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 35<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 I fail to see your reasoning. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 I will endeavour to show you what I mean. You will
\nadmit that one man’s meat is another man’s poison, will you not? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 Yes, and that is where our system works so beautifully;
\nfor we bring in our arithmetical solution of balancing the good and the evil of
\nan action and if the scale of the evil rises, we stamp it as good, if the scale
\nof the good rises, we brand it as evil. What do you say to that? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Dear me! that does indeed sound simple and satisfying.
\nI am afraid, Broome, we shall have to throw up our theory in favour of
\nBentham’s. Your system is really so attractive and transparent, Trevor, that I
\nshould dearly like to learn more about it. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 Now you are indulging in irony, Desai; you know Bentham
\nas well as I do.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Not quite so well as all that; but I avow I have
\nstudied him very carefully. Yet from some cause I have not discovered, his
\narguments seldom seemed to me to have any force, while you on the other hand do
\nreally strike home to the judgment. And therefore I should like to see whether
\nyou are entirely at one with Bentham. For example I believe you prefer the good
\nof the community to the good of the individual, do you not? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 Not at all: it is the individuals who are the
\ncommunity.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 It is gratifying to learn that: but if the interests of
\na few individuals conflict with the interests of the general body, you prefer
\nthe interests of the general body, do you not? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 As a matter of course. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 And, as a general rule, if you have to deal with a
\nnumber of persons and the good of some is not reconcilable with the good of
\nothers, you prefer the good of the greater number? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 That again is obvious. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 So you accept the dogma "the greatest good of the
\ngreatest number", for if one interest of a given person or number of persons
\nconflict with another interest, you prefer the greater?   <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 36<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 Without hesitation. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 And so the Athenians were right when they put Socrates
\nto death.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 What makes you advance so absurd a paradox?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Why, your arithmetical system of balancing the good and
\nthe evil. The injury to Socrates is not to be put in comparison with the profit
\nto the State, for we prefer the good of the greater number, and the pleasure
\nexperienced by the youths he corrupted in his discourse and the enjoyment of
\ntheir corruption is not to be so much considered as the pain they would
\nexperience from the effects of their corruption and the pain inflicted on the
\nstate by the rising generation growing up corrupt and dissolute, for among
\nconflicting interests we prefer the greatest. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 But Socrates did not corrupt the youth of Athens.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 The Athenians thought he was corrupting their youth and
\nthey were bound to act on their opinion. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 They were not bound to act on their opinion, but on the
\nfacts.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 What is this you are telling me, Trevor? We are then
\nonly to act when we have a correct opinion, and, seeing that a definitely
\ncorrect opinion can only be formed by posterity after we are dead, we are not to
\nuse your arithmetical balance or at least can only use it when we are dead? Then
\nI do not see much utility in your arithmetical balance. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 Now I come to think of it, the Athenians were right in
\nputting Socrates to death.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 And the Jews in crucifying Christ? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 Yes.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 I admire your fortitude, my dear Trevor. And if the
\nEnglish people had thought Bentham was corrupting their youth, they would have
\nbeen right in hanging Bentham, would they not? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 What a fellow you are, Desai! Of course what I mean is
\nthat the Athenians & the Jews did not listen to their honest opinion but purely
\nto the voice of malice. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Then if these wicked people who put wise men to death
\nnot in honest folly but from malice, were to have said   <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 37<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nto you, "Come now, you who accuse us of pure malice, are you
\nnot actuated by pure benevolence? If our approval is founded on<\/span><\/font>
\nsentiment, your
\ndisapproval is founded on the same flimsy basis; you have no reasonable
\nobjection to the poisoning of Socrates<\/font>
\nor the crucifixion of
\nChrist or the hanging of Bentham as the case may be" and you were to tell them
\nthat your arithmetical<\/font>
\nbalance said it was not
\nprofitable, would they not be justified in asking whether your arithmetical
\nbalance was infallible and<\/font>
\nwhether you had a
\nsatisfactory principle which guided your calculations?<\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 Yes, and I should tell them that I valued as profitable
\nwhat conduces to happiness and as unprofitable what detracts from or does not
\nadd to happiness. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 I am afraid that would not satisfy them, for the nature
\nof happiness is just as disputable as the nature of profit. You do not think so?
\nWell, for example do not some think that happiness lies in material comfort,
\nwhile others look for it in the province of the intellect? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 These distinctions are mere nonsense; both are alike
\nessential.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Indeed we have reason to thank heaven that there are
\nstill some of the sages left who are sufficiently impartial to condemn every
\nopinion but their own. Yet under correction, I should like to venture on a
\nquestion; if the good that conduces to material comfort is not reconcilable with
\nthe good that conduces to intellectual pleasure, how do you manage your
\narithmetical balance?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 Material comfort before all things! that is a
\nnecessity, intellect a luxury. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 You are a consistent change-artist, Trevor; yet may
\nthere not be diverse opinions on the point? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 I do not see how it is possible. The human race may be
\nhappy without intellectual pleasure, but never without material comfort.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Have you any historical data to bear out your
\ngeneralisation? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 I cannot say I have, but I appeal to common sense.  
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 38<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Oh, if you appeal to Caesar, I am lost; but be sure
\nthat if you bring your case before the tribunal of common sense, I will appeal
\nnot to common, but to uncommon sense \u2014 and that will arbitrate in my favour.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 Well, we must agree to differ. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 At any rate we have arrived at this, that you assign
\nmaterial comfort as the most important element in happiness, while I assign the
\nfree play of the intellect. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 So it seems.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 And you maintain that I am wrong because I disagree
\nwith you?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 No, because you disagree with reason.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 That is, with reason as you see it. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 If you like.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 And you think I am unique in my opinion? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 No indeed! there are too many who agree with you.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Now we have gone a step farther. Apparently the nature
\nof happiness is a matter of opinion. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 Oh, of course, if you like to say so.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 And happiness is the basis of morality. You agree? Very
\nwell, the nature of the basis is a matter of opinion, and it seems to follow
\nthat morality itself is a matter of opinion. And so we have come to this, that
\nafter rejecting as a basis of morality our individual sense of what is just and
\nright, we have accepted our individual sense of what conduces to happiness.
\nTherefore it is moral for you to refrain from stealing and for me to steal. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 That is a comfortable conclusion at any rate.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Yet I think it is borne out by our premises. Do you not
\nimagine the security of property to be essential to happiness and anything that
\ndisturbs it immoral? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 That goes without saying and I admit that it is immoral
\nfor me to steal.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Now I on the other hand am indeed of the opinion that
\nmaterial comfort is essential to happiness, for without it the intellect cannot
\nhave free play, but believing as I do that   <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 39<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthe system of private property conduces to the comfort of the
\nfew, but its abolition will conduce to the comfort of the many,<\/span><\/font>
\nI, on the principle you
\nhave accepted, the greatest good of the greatest number, am opposed to the
\nsystem of private property.<\/font>
\nAnd I believe that the
\nprevalence of crimes against property will accelerate the day of abolition. I
\nrecognise indeed that the<\/font>
\nimmediate effects will be
\nevil, but put a greater value on the ultimate good than on the immediate evil.
\nIt follows that, if my<\/font>
\nreasoning be correct and
\nwe agreed that individual judgment must be the arbiter, it is perfectly moral
\nfor me to steal.<\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 There is no arguing with you, Desai. You wrest the
\nmeaning of words until one does not remember what one is talking about. The
\nenormous length to which you carry your sophistries is appalling. If I had time,
\nI would stop and refute you. As it is, I will leave you to pour your absurdities
\ninto more congenial ears.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 You are not going, Trevor? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTrevor <\/i>\u2014 I am afraid I must. Goodnight.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Goodnight. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nThat was rather brisker towards the close. I hope you were
\nnot bored, Broome. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014 No, I was excellently amused. But do your arguments
\nwith him usually terminate in this abrupt fashion? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Very often they do so terminate. Trevor is a good
\nfellow \u2014 a fine intellect spoiled \u2014 but he cannot bear adversity with an equal
\nmind. Now let us resume our inquiry. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\nI think we had gone so far as to discover that human life is
\nthe great element of discord in the Cosmos, and the best system of morality is
\nthat which really tends to restore the harmony of the universe, and we agreed
\nthat if we apply the principles governing the universe to human life, we shall
\ndiscover the highest principle of conduct. That was the point where we broke
\noff, was it not?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014 Yes, we broke off just there.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 So we profess to have found a sense in which the theory
\nadvanced by philosophers of every age has become true, that life ought to be
\nlived in accordance with nature and not in   <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 40<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\naccordance with convention. The error we impute to them was
\nthat they failed to keep nature distinct from human nature and<\/span><\/font>
\nforgot that the latter was
\ncomplicated by the presence of that fallible reason, of which conventions are
\nthe natural children. Thus<\/font>
\nmen of genius like
\nRousseau reverted to the savage for a model and gave weight to the paradox that
\ncivilization is a mistake. Let<\/font>
\nus not forget that it is
\nuseless to look for unalloyed nature in the savage, so long as we cannot trace
\nhuman development from its<\/font>
\norigin: to the original
\nman the savage would seem nothing but a mass of conventions. We have nothing to
\nlearn from savages;<\/font>
\nbut there is a vast deal
\nto be learned from the errors of civilized peoples. Civilization is a failure,
\nnot a mistake.<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014 That is a subtle distinction. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Not at all. Civilization was necessary, if the human
\nrace was to progress at all. The pity of it is that it has taken the wrong turn
\nand fallen into the waters of convention. There lies the failure. When man at
\nthe very first step of his history used his reason to confound the all-pervading
\nCosmos or harmonious arrangement of Nature, conventions became necessary in
\norder to allure him into less faulty modes of reasoning, by which alone he could
\nlearn to rectify his error. But after the torrent had rolled for a time along
\nits natural course and two broad rivers of Thought, the Greek and the Hindu,
\nwere losing themselves in the grand harmony, there was a gradual but perceptible
\nswerve, and the forces of convention which had guided, began to misguide, and
\nthe Sophists in Greece, in India the Brahmans availed themselves of these mighty
\nforces to compass their own supremacy, and once at the helm of thought gave
\npermanence to the power by which they stood, until two religions, the most
\nhostile to Nature, in the east Buddhism, her step-child Christianity in the
\nwest, completed the evil their predecessors had begun. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nHear the legend of Purush, the son of Prithivi, and his
\njourney to the land of Beulah, the land of blooming gardens and yellow-vested
\nacres and wavering tree-tops, and two roads lead to it. One road is very simple,
\nvery brief, very direct, and this leads over the smiling summit of a
\ndouble-headed peak, but the other through the gaping abysses of a lion-throated
\nantre and   <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 41<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nit is very long, very painful, very circuitous. Now the wise
\nand beautiful instructress of Purush had indeed warned him that<\/span><\/font>
\nall other wayfarers had
\nchosen the ascent of the beautiful hill, but had not explicitly forbidden him to
\nselect the untried and<\/font>
\nperilous route. And the
\nman was indolent and thought it more facile to journey smoothly through a tunnel
\nthan to breast with<\/font>
\narduous effort the tardy
\nand panting slope, yet plumed himself on a nobler nature than all who had gone
\nbefore him, because<\/font>
\nthey had obeyed their
\nmonitress, but he was guided by his reason and honourably preferred the unknown
\nand perilous to the safe<\/font>
\nand familiar. From this
\ntangle of motives he chose the cavernous lion-throat of the gaping antre, not
\nthe swelling breasts of the<\/font>
\nfruitful mother. <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nVery gaily he entered the cave singing wild ballads of the
\ndeeds his fathers wrought, of Krishna and Arjun and Ram and Ravan and their
\nglory and their fall, but not so merrily did he journey in its entrails, but
\nrather in hunger and thirst groped wearily with the unsleeping beak of the
\nvulture Misery in his heart, and only now and then caught glimpses of an elusive
\nlight, yet did not realise his error but pursued with querulous reproaches the
\nbeautiful gods his happy imagination had moulded or bitterly reviled the
\ndouble-dealing he imputed to his lovely and wise instructress \u2014 "for she it was"
\nhe complained "who told me of the route through the cavern". None the less he
\npersevered until he was warmed by the genuine smiles of daylight and joy
\nblossoming in his heart, made his step firmer and his body more erect. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nAnd he strode on until he arrived where the antre split in
\ntwo branches, the one seeming dark as Erebus to his eyes, though indeed it was
\nwhite and glorious as a naked girl and suffused by the light of the upper heaven
\nwith seas of billowing splendour, had not his eyes, grown dim from holding
\ncommunion with the night and blinded by the unaccustomed brilliance, believed
\nthat the light was darkness, through which if he had persevered, he had arrived
\nin brief space among the blooming gardens and the wavering tree-tops and the
\nacres in their glorious golden garb and all the imperishable beauty of Beulah.
\nAnd the other branch   <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 20<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nhe thought the avenue of the sunlight, because the glimmer
\nwas feeble enough to be visible, like a white arm through a sleeve of<\/span><\/font>
\nblack lace. And down this
\nbranch he went, for ever allured by unreal glimpses of a dawning glory, until he
\nhas descended into<\/font>
\nthe abysmal darkness and
\nthe throne of ancient night, where he walks blindly like a machine, carrying the
\nwhite ashes of hope<\/font>
\nin the funeral urn of
\nyouth, and knows not whence to expect a rescue, seeing the only heaven above him
\nis the terrible pillared<\/font>
\nroof, the only horizon
\naround him the antre with its hateful unending columns and demogorgon veil of
\nvisible darkness,<\/font>
\nand the beautiful gods he
\nimagined are dead and his heart is no longer sweetened with prayers, and his
\nthroat no longer<\/font>
\nbubbles with hymns of
\npraise. His beautiful gods are dead and her who was his lovely guide and wise
\nmonitress, he no longer<\/font>
\nsees as the sweet and
\nsmiling friend of his boyhood, but as a fury slinging flame and a blind Cyclops
\nhurling stones she knows not<\/font>
\nwhither nor why and a
\nghastly skeleton only the more horrible for its hideous mimicry of life. He
\nsends a wailing cry to heaven,<\/font>
\nbut only jeering echoes
\nfall from the impenetrable ceiling, for there is no heaven, and he sends a
\nhoarse shriek for aid to<\/font>
\nhell, but only a gurgling
\nhorror rises from the impenetrable floor, for there is no hell, and he looks
\naround for God, but his<\/font>
\neyes cannot find him, and
\nhe gropes for God in the darkness, but his fingers cannot find him but only the
\nclammy fingers of<\/font>
\nnight, and goblin fancies
\nare rioting in his brain, and hateful shapes pursue him with clutching fingers,
\nand horrible figures<\/font>
\ngo rustling past him
\nhalf-discerned in the familiar gloom. He is weary of the dreadful vaulted
\nceiling, he is weary of the dreadful<\/font>
\nendless floor. And what
\nshall he do but lie down and die, who if he goes on, will soon perish of
\nweariness and famine and thirst?<\/font>
\nYet did he but know it, he
\nhas only to turn back at a certain angle and he will see through a chink of the
\ncavern a crocus<\/font>
\nmoon with a triple zone of
\nburning stars, which if he will follow, after not so very painful a journey, not
\nso very long an elapse<\/font>
\nof hours, he will come
\ninto a land of perennial fountains, where he may quench his thirst, and
\nglistening fruit-groves where he<\/font>
\nmay fill his hunger, and
\nsweet cool grass where he may solace  <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 43<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nhis weariness, and so pursue his journey by the nearest way
\nto the wavering tree-tops, and the blooming gardens and the acres<\/span><\/font>
\nin their yellow gaberdines
\nfor which his soul has long panted. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nThis is the legend of Purush, the son of Prithivi and his
\njourney to the land of Beulah. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014 That is a fine apologue, Keshav; is it your own, may I
\nask?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 It is an allegory conceived by Vallabha Swami, the
\nIndian Epicurus, and revealed to me by him in a vision. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014 There we see the false economy of Nature; only they are
\nprivileged to see these beautiful visions, who can without any prompting
\nconceive images not a whit less beautiful.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 The germ of the story was really a dream, but the form
\nand application are my own. The myth means, as I dare say you have found out,
\nthat our present servitude to conventions which are the machinery of thought and
\naction, is principally due to weaknesses forming a large element in human
\nnature. Our lives ought not to be lived in accordance with human nature which
\ncan nowhere be found apart from the disturbing element of reason, but according
\nto nature at large where we find the principle of harmony pure and undefiled. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014 On that we are both at one; let us start directly from
\nthis base of operations. I am impatient to follow the crocus moon with her
\ntriple zone of burning stars into the Eden of murmuring brooks and golden groves
\nand fields of asphodel. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 The basis of morality is then the application to human
\nlife of the principles governing the universe; and the great principle of the
\nuniverse is beauty, is it not? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014 So we have discovered. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 And we described beauty as harmony in effect and
\nproportion in detail.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014 That was our description.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Then the aim of morality must be to make human life
\nharmonious. Now the other types in the universe are harmonious not merely in
\nrelation to their internal parts, but in relation to each other and the sum of
\nthe universe, are they not? <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 44<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font>
\n<\/font> \t\t\t<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014We mean, I suppose, that the star fills its place in the
\nCosmos and the rose fills her place, but man does not fill his. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That is what we mean. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then the human race must not only be harmonious within
\nitself, but must be harmonious in relation to the star and the rose and so fill
\nits place as to perfect the harmony of the universe. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Are we not repeating ourselves? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014No, but we are in danger of it. I am aiming at a clear
\nand accurate wording of my position and that is not easy to acquire at a
\nmoment’s notice. I think our best way would be to consider the harmony of man
\nwith the universe and leave the internal harmony of the race for subsequent
\ninquiry. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Perhaps it would be best. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014When we say that man should fill his place in the
\nCosmos, we mean that he should be in proportion with its other elements, just as
\nthe thorn is in proportion to the leaf and the leaf to the rose, for proportion
\nis the ulterior cause of harmony. And we described proportion as a regular
\nvariety, or to use a more vivid phrase, a method in madness. If this is so, it
\nis incumbent on man to be various in his development from the star, the rose and
\nthe other elements of the Cosmos, in a word to be original. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That follows. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014But is it enough to be merely original? For in stance if
\nhe were to hoist himself into the air by some mechanical contrivance and turn
\nsomersaults unto all eternity, that would be original, but he would not be
\nhelping much towards universal harmony, would he? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Well, not altogether. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then if we want to describe the abstract idea of virtue,
\nwe want something more than originality. I think we said that proportion is not
\nmerely variety, but regular variety? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes, that is obvious. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then man must be not merely original but regular in his
\noriginality. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I cannot exactly see what you mean. <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 45<\/span><\/font><\/i>
\n<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014I cannot at all see what I mean; yet, unless our whole
\ntheory is unsound, and that I am loth to believe, I must mean something. Let us
\ntry the plan we have already adopted with such success, when we discovered the
\nnature of beauty. We will take some form of harmony and inquire how regularity
\nenters into it; and it occurs to me that the art of calligraphy will be useful
\nfor the purpose, for a beautifully-written sentence has many letters just as the
\nuniverse has many types and it seems that proportion is just as necessary to it.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes, calligraphy will do very well. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014I recollect that we supposed beauty to have three
\nelements, of which every type must possess at least one, better two, and as a
\ncounsel of perfection all three. If we inquire, we shall find that form is
\nabsolutely imperative, seeing that if the form of the letters is not beautiful
\nor the arrangement of the lines not harmonious, then the sentence is not
\nbeautifully written. Colour too may be an element of calligraphy, for we all
\nknow what different effects we can produce by using inks of various colours. And
\nif the art is to be perfect, I think that perfume will have to enter very
\nlargely into it. Let us write the word "beautiful". Here you see the letters are
\nbeautifully formed, their arrangement is beautiful, this bright green ink I am
\nusing harmonizes well with the word, and moreover the sight of this peculiar
\ncombination of letters written in this peculiar way brings to my mind a peculiar
\nassociation of ideas, which I call the perfume of the written word. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014But is it not the combination, not of letters but of
\nsounds, which lingers in your mind and calls up the idea? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014I do not think so, for I often find sentences that seem
\nto me beautiful in writing or in print, but, once I utter them aloud, become
\nharsh and unmusical; and sometimes the reverse happens, especially in Meredith,
\nin whom I have often at first sight condemned a sentence as harsh and ugly,
\nwhich, when I read it aloud, I was surprised to find apt and harmonious. From
\nthis I infer that if a writer’s works appear beautiful in print or manuscript,
\nbut not beautiful when read aloud, he may be set down as a good artist in
\ncalligraphy, but a bad artist in literature,   <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 46<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\t\t\t
\n<\/i>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/i> since suggestion to the eye is the perfume of the written, but suggestion
\nto the ear the perfume of the spoken word. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

In this however I seem to have been digressing to no purpose;
\n<\/span>
\n<\/font>
\n
\nfor whatever else is
\nuncertain, this much is certain, that form is essential to calligraphy, and this
\nis really all that concerns us. Now if the form is to be beautiful it must be
\nharmonious in effect, and to be harmonious in effect it must be proportionate in
\ndetail, and to be proportionate in detail, the words and letters of which it is
\nmade must exhibit a regular variety. We can easily see that the letters and
\nwords in a sentence are various, but how can they be said to be regular in their
\nvariety?
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I do not know at present, but I can see that the variety
\nis regular. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014This we must find out without delay. Let us take the
\nalphabet and see if the secret is patent there. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That is indeed looking for Truth at the bottom of a
\nwell. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Do you not see at a glance that the letters in the Latin
\nalphabet are regular in this sense, that the dominant line is the curve and
\nthere is no written letter without it, for the straight lines are only used to
\nprevent the monotony generated by an unrelieved system of curves? In the Bengali
\nalphabet again, which is more elaborate, but less perfect than the Latin, there
\nis a dominant combination of one or more straight lines with one or more curves
\nand to obviate monotony letters purely composed of straight lines are set off by
\nothers purely composed of curves. In the Burmese and other dialects, I believe
\nbut from hearsay only, no line but the curve is admitted and I am told that the
\neffect is undeniably pretty but a trifle monotonous. Here then we have a clue.
\nIf we consider, as we have previously considered, every type in the universe to
\nbe a word, then, if the sentence is to be beautifully written each word must not
\nonly be various from its near companions but must allow one dominant principle
\nto determine the lines on which it must vary; and to avoid monotony there must
\nbe straight lines in the letters, that is to say each type must have individual
\ntypes within it departing from the general type by acknowledging another
\ndominant principle. I am afraid <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 47<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\t\t\t
\n<\/i>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/i>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/font>
\n
\nthis is rather intricate.
\nWould you like it to be made clearer?
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014No, I perfectly understand; but I should like to guard
\nmyself against being misled by the analogy between a beautifully-written
\nsentence and the beautifully-arranged universe. If this rule does not apply to
\nevery other form of beauty, we may not justly compare the universe to one in
\nwhich it does happen to apply. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014I hope you will only require me to adduce examples of
\nperfect beauty, for the aim of morality is to arrange a perfect, not an
\nimperfect harmony. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Oh certainly, that is all I am entitled to require.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then you will admit that the stars are various, yet
\nbuilt on a dominant principle? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Without doubt. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And in making the flowers so various, the divine artist
\ndid not fail to remember a dominant principle which prevails in the structure
\nand character of his episode in flowers. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014But this is merely to take an unfair advantage of the
\nmethod of species so largely indulged in by Nature. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>
\n\u2014Well, if you prefer particulars to generals, we will inquire into the beauty of
\na Greek design, for the Greeks were the only painters who understood the value
\nof design, and we will as usual take an example of perfect beauty. Do you know
\nthe Nereid and Sea-Horse? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Very intimately. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then, if you have not forgotten how in that in
\ncomparable work of art to every mass there is another and answering mass and to
\nthe limbs floating forward limbs floating backwards and to every wisp of drapery
\nan answering wisp of drapery, and in short how the whole design is built on the
\nsatisfying principle of balancing like by like, you will admit that here is a
\ndominant idea regulating variety. And the principle of balancing like with like
\nis not peculiar to Greek designing but prevalent in the designs of Nature, for
\nexample, the human face, where eye answers to luminous eye and both are luminous
\nwith one and the same brilliance, nor is one hazel while the other is azure, and
\nthe porches of hearing are two but similar in their <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 48<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n

curious workmanship, and the sweep of the brow to one ear
\ndoes not vary from the sweep of the brow to the other and the divergence of the
\nchin describes a similar curve on either face <\/span>
\n<\/font>
\n
\nof the design, nor is one
\ncheek pallid with the touch of fear while the other blushes with the flag of joy
\nand health, but in everything the artist has remembered the principle of
\nbalancing like with like, both here and in the emerald leaf and swaying apple
\nwhich if you tear along the fibrous spine or slice through the centre of the
\ncore, will leave in your hands two portions, diverse in entity but alike in
\nmaterial and workmanship. And yet the impertinent criticism of the moderns
\nclaims for themselves a keener appreciation of Nature, than those great pupils
\nwho learned her lessons so gloriously well. If you would like farther examples
\nof the dominant principle regulating variety in a design, you need only look at
\na blowing rose, a wind-inspired frigate, an evergreen poem, and you will not be
\ndisappointed. With all this in your mind, you will surely admit that even if we
\ncompare the universe to a system of designs we shall not arrive at other results
\nthan when we compared it to God’s episode in flowers and his marshalled pomp of
\nstars and a sentence beautifully written.
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yet I should like to ask one more question. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014My dear Broome, you are at liberty to ask a thousand,
\nfor I am always ready to answer. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014A single answer will satisfy me. Why do you compare the
\nuniverse to a system of designs and not to a single design? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014The universe itself is a system of designs, first the
\nharmony of worlds and within it the lands and seas and on that the life of
\nflowers and trees & the life of birds and beasts and fishes and the life of
\nhuman beings. Imagine the Greeks in search of a dominant idea to regulate the
\nvariety of their designs and hitting on the human figure as their model; would
\nthey not have been foolish, if they had gone away from their study of the human
\nfigure and drawn a system, balancing like design by like design? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I suppose they would.  <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 49<\/span><\/font><\/i>
\n<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Nor should we be less foolish to draw up an ideal
\nuniverse or system of designs on the principle of a single design. Are you
\nsatisfied? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Perfectly. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And our conclusion is that we ought to regulate the
\nvariety of the types in the universe, not by balancing like with like, but by
\ndetermining the lines of variance on one dominant principle. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That is the indisputable conclusion. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And so, now we have panted up to the ridge we once
\nthought the crowning summit, we find that we have to climb another slope as
\narduous which was lying in wait for us behind. We have discovered the presence
\nof a dominant idea in the variety of types, but we do not know what the idea may
\nbe. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That is what we have to find. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014But if we find that all the diverging types observe a
\nsingle requisite in divergence, shall we not infer that we have found the idea
\nof which we are inquisitive? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Obviously. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And we shall find it most easily by comparing one type
\nwith another, shall we not? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That is our first idea. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014But if we compare a rose to a star, we shall not find
\nthem agree in any respect except the brilliance of their hues and that is not
\nlikely to be the dominant idea. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014They are both beautiful. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Exactly, but we wish to learn the elements of their
\nbeauty, and we agreed that these were variety, to begin with, and method in
\nvariety. Now we are inquiring what the method is they observe in their variety.
\nWe know that they are both beautiful; but we wish to know why they are both
\nbeautiful. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014And how are you going to do it? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Well, since it will not do to compare a rose with a
\nstar, we will compare a star with a star; and here we find, that, however widely
\nthey differ, there is a large residuum of properties, such as brilliance and
\nlight, which are invariably present in one and the other, and they diverge not
\nin the possession <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 50<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\t\t\t
\n<\/i>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/i> and absence of properties peculiar to a star, but in things ac<\/span><\/font>cidental,
\nin their size and the exactness of their shape and the measure of their
\nbrilliance and the character of the orbits they are describing. And if we
\ncompare flower with flower, we shall find a residuum of properties invariably
\npresent in one and the other but the divergence of flower from flower, just like
\nthe divergence of star from star, not in properties peculiar to a flower, but in
\naccidents like size and peculiarities of shape and varying vividness of hues and
\ntime and length of efflorescence. Moreover we perceive that the star is content
\nto pierce the darkness with its rays and to burn like a brilliant diamond in the
\nbodice of heaven, and is not ambitious to shed sweet perfumes upon space or to
\nburden the heart of the night with song, but develops the virtues of a star
\nwithout aspiring to the virtues of a flower or a bird, and the rose content to
\nbe an empress in colour and perfume and a gorgeous harmony of petals and is not
\nambitious to give light in the darkness or to murmur a noontide song in response
\nto the bee, but develops the virtues of a rose without aspiring to the virtue of
\na bee or a star. And so if we compare with the help of this new light the rose
\nand the star, we see that they are both alike in developing their own virtues
\nwithout aspiring to the virtues of one another. And this is the case with every
\nnatural form of beauty animate or inanimate, is it not?
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014There can be no doubt of that. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then have we not found the dominant idea which governs
\nthe variety of types? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014 I really believe we have. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And man if he wishes to be in proportion with the other
\nelements of the Cosmos, must be content to develop the virtues of a man without
\naspiring to the virtues of a rose or a star, or any other element of the Cosmos?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014So it seems. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And when we talk of the virtues of a star, do we not
\nmean the inborn qualities and powers which are native to its sidereal character,
\nfor example brilliance and light? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Of course. <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 51<\/span><\/font>
\n<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And by the virtues of a flower the inborn qualities and
\npowers which are native to its floral character, such as fragrance, colour,
\ndelicacy of texture? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then by the virtues of a man we shall have to mean the
\ninborn qualities and powers which are native to his humanity, such as -what
\nshall we say? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That we can discover afterwards. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Very well; but at any rate we can see already that some
\nthings are not inborn qualities and powers native to our humanity; and we know
\nnow why it is not an act of splendid virtue to turn somersaults in the air
\nwithout any visible means of sup port; for if we did that, we should not be
\ndeveloping the virtues of a man, but we should be aspiring to the virtues of a
\nkite; or, to use one of our phrases, we should be mad without method. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That is evident. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014So a man’s virtue lies not in turning somersaults
\nwithout any visible means of support, but in the perfect evolution of the inborn
\nqualities and powers which are native to his humanity. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes, and I believe these are the very words in which you
\ndescribed virtue before we started on our voyage of discovery. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014That is indeed gratifying: and if we have shown any
\nconstancy and perseverance in following our clue through the labyrinth, I at
\nleast am amply rewarded, who feel convinced by the identity of the idea I have
\nderived from the pedestrian processes of logical inference with the idea I once
\ncaught on the wings of thought and instinct, that as far as human eyes are
\nallowed to gaze on the glorious visage of Truth unveiled, we shall be privileged
\nto unveil her and embrace her spiritual presence, and are not following a
\nwill-o’-the-wisp of the imagination to perish at last in a quagmire. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\nWe have then laid a firm hold on that clear and accurate
\nwording, for which we were recently groping as blindly as Purush in his delusive
\ncavern. And since the human brain is impatient of abstract ideas but easily
\nfixed and taken by concrete   <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 52<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\t\t\t
\n<\/i>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/i> images, let me embody our ideas in a simile. I have an accurate remembrance
\nof climbing a very steep and ragged rock on the Yorkshire beaches, where my only
\nfoothold was a ladder carved <\/span>
\n<\/font>
\n
\nin the rock with the rungs
\nso wide apart that I had to grasp tightly the juts and jags and so haul myself
\nup as slowly as a lizard, if I did not prefer by a false step or misplaced
\nconfidence to drop down some thirty feet on a rough sediment of sharp and
\npolished pebbles. It occurs to me that what I did then in the body, I am doing
\nnow in the spirit, and it is a reason for self-gratulation that I have mounted
\nsafely to the second rung of the perilous ladder and am not lying shattered on
\nthe harsh and rasping pebbles of disappointment. And if I aspire to the third
\nrung, I shall have less cause for apprehension than in my Yorkshire peril, since
\nI can hardly fall to the beach but shall merely slip back to the rung from which
\nI am mounting. Let us then estimate our progress. Our first rung was the basis
\nof morality which we may describe by the golden rule "apply to human life the
\nprinciples dominant in the Cosmos", and our second, as we now see, is the
\nconception of abstract virtue or the perfect expression of the human being as a
\ntype in the Cosmos, and this we describe as "the consistent evolution of the
\ninborn qualities and powers native to our humanity".
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

Here then we have two rungs of the ladder, we must now be
\nvery careful in our selection of the third. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Is it not obviously the next stage to discover what are
\nthe inborn qualities and powers native to our humanity? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Possibly. Yet have we not forgotten a signal omission we
\nmade when we drew inferences from the comparison of a beautifully written
\nsentence to the beautifully arranged universe? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I am afraid I at least have forgotten. What was it?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Did we not compare the broad types in the Cosmos to the
\nwords in a sentence and infer that as the dominant principle governing the word
\nwas the prevalence of the curve, so there must be a dominant principle governing
\nthe type? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014We did. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And also that as in the letters within the word <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 53<\/span><\/font>
\n<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\nthere were two prevalent lines, the curve and the straight
\nline, so within the broad or generic type there are individual types governed by
\nquite another principle. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That also. But surely you are not going to argue from
\nanalogies? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Did we not argue from the beautifully written sentence
\nmerely because the principles of calligraphy proved to be the principles of
\nevery sort of harmony? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I confess we did; otherwise all we have been saying
\nwould be merely a brilliant explosion of fancy. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then we are logically justified in what we have been
\ndoing. Consider then how in a system of harmony, every part has to be harmonious
\nin itself or else mar the universal music. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That is true. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And the human race is a part of such a system, is it
\nnot? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then must the human race become harmonious within itself
\nor continue to spoil the universal harmony. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Of course. How foolish of me to lose sight of that.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And so we have been elucidating the harmony of man with
\nthe Cosmos and saying nothing about the harmony of man with man? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Did we not relegate that for subsequent inquiry? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014We did, but I think the time for subsequent inquiry has
\ncome. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014It is too late in the day for me to distrust your
\nguidance. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014I do not think you will have reason to regret your
\nconfidence in me. Our line then will be to consider the internal harmony of the
\nrace before we proceed farther. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014So it is best. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Here again we must start from our description of beauty
\nas harmony in effect and proportion in detail and our description of the latter
\nas a regular variety or method in <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 54<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\t\t\t
\n<\/i>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/i> madness. Then just as in the Cosmos, the individual type must vary from all
\nthe other types, so in the human Cosmos the individual man must vary from all
\nother men. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That is rather startling. Do you mean that there ought
\nto be no point of contact? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014No, Broome; for we must always remember that the
\nelements of a generic type must have certain virtues without which they would
\nnot belong to the type: as the poet says <\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nOne touch of nature makes the whole world kin. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Then where do you find your variety? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014If you will compare the elements of those types in which
\nthe harmony is perfect, your ignorance will vanish like a mist. You will see at
\nonce that every planet develops indeed his planetary qualities, but varies from
\nevery other planet, and if Venus be the name and the star be feminine, is a
\ndovelike white in complexion and yields an effulgence more tender than a girl’s
\nblush, but if he is Mars, burns with the sanguine fire of battle and rolls like
\na bloodshot eye through space, and if he is Saturn, has seven moons in his
\nstarry seraglio, and is richly orange in complexion like vapour coloured by the
\nsun’s pencil when he sets, and wears a sevenfold girdle of burning fire blue as
\na witch’s eye and green as Love’s parrot and red as the lips of Cleopatra and
\nindeed of all manner of beautiful colours, and if he is Jupiter or any one of
\nthe planets, has the qualities of that planet and has not the qualities of
\nanother, but develops his own personality and has no regard for any model or the
\nexample of any other planet. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\nAnd if you drop your eyes from the sublimer astral spaces to
\nthe modest gauds of Earth our mother, you will see that every flower has indeed
\nthe qualities of its floral nature, but varies widely from her sister beauties,
\nand if she is a lily, hides in her argent beaker a treasure of golden dust and
\nher beauty is a young and innocent bride on her marriage-morning, but if she is
\na crocus, has a bell-like beauty and is absorbed in the intoxication of her own
\nloveliness and wears now the gleaming robe of sunrise and now a dark and
\ndelicate purple, and now a <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 55<\/span><\/font>
\n<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\nsoft and sorrowful pallor, but, if she is a rose, has the
\nfragrance of a beautiful soul and the vivid colour of a gorgeous poem, yet
\nconceals a sharp sting beneath the nestling luxury of her glorious petals, and
\nif she is a hyacinth or honeysuckle or meadow-sweet, has the poisonous perfume
\nof the meadow-sweet or the soul-subduing fragrance of the honeysuckle or the
\npassionate cry of the hyacinth, and not the beautiful egoism of the crocus or
\nthe oriental splendour of the rose, but develops her own qualities without
\naspiring to the qualities of any and every flower. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nMay we not then say that the dominant principle regulating
\nthe variety of individual types is the evolution of individual as distinct from
\ngeneric virtues? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That is the logical consequence. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then the description of individual virtue runs thus, the
\nevolution by the human being of the inborn qualities and powers native to his
\npersonality; that is to say, just as every beautiful building has the solid
\nearth for its basis but is built in a distinct style of architecture, so the
\nbeautiful human soul will rest on the solid basis of humanity but build up for
\nitself a personality distinct and individual. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That is exactly what the virtuous man must do. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And so with infinite ease and smoothness we have glided
\nup to the third rung of our ladder, as if we were running up a broad and marble
\nstair-case. Here then let us stop and reflect on all we have said and consider
\nwhether from confusion of mind or inability to comprehend the whole situation we
\nhave made any mistake or omission. For my part I avow that my thoughts have not
\nbeen so lucid tonight as I could have wished. We are then to continue the
\ninquiry in the Gardens on Tuesday afternoon? I think that was what you
\nsuggested. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes, on Tuesday at half-past two. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Would you mind my bringing Prince Paradox with me? He is
\nanxious to hear how we are dealing with our idea and as he will be perfectly
\nwilling to go the lengths we have so far gone, we need not fear that he will be
\na drag on us. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I am perfectly willing that he should come. The more,
\nthe merrier.   <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 56<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Not at this stage; for this intellectual ascent up the
\nprecipice of discovery, is indeed very exciting and pleasant, but strains the
\nmuscles of the mind more than a year’s academical work; and I trust that next
\ntime we shall bring it to a satisfying conclusion. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nEnd of the Second Book<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tBook Three <\/a>
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tKeshav Ganesh \u2014 Broome
\n\t\t\tWilson \u2014Treneth<\/i>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014But we must not forget our purpose in being here.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Well, Broome, what do you say to our resuming our cruise for the discovery of virtue? I avow the speculation
\nweighs on me, and I am impatient to see the last of it. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I have not to learn that you are the most indolent of men. No sooner are you in a novel current of thought than you tire and swim back to the shore. I am indignant with Nature for wasting on you a genius you so little appreciate.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014Ah but you
\nare really quite wrong, Wilson. Genius is a capacity for being indolent. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Enter Prince Paradox! But seriously, Keshav, I
\nthink the argument will live beyond this afternoon and I give warning that I shall drag you all over the field of ethics before we have done with it.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014It will be
\nthe corpse of my intellect you will mal treat. But in extremity I rely upon Treneth to slay my Argus with the bright edge of a paradox.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014We were at the third rung of the ladder, were we not?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Yes, thou slave-driving Ishmaelite. I declare it is impious on a day like this to bury ourselves in the gloomy vaults of speculation. But as you will.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nTo remember how far we have climbed, is the best incentive
\nto climb farther, and will give Treneth an idea of the situation. We happened to be weighing the ordinary principles of morality
\nand finding them all wanting cast about for a new principle and discovered that beauty was the sole morality of the universe,
\nand it had colour, form and perfume as elements, harmony as its general effect and proportion, which we described as regular
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nPage – 58<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\t\t\t
\n<\/i>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/i> <\/span>
\n<\/font>
\nvariety or method in madness, as
\nthe ulterior cause of the harmony, and we ventured to imagine that as all the other elements of the universe were harmonious notes in a perfect sonata, but the human element had wilfully chosen to jar upon and ruin
\nthe exquisite music, the right principle of virtue was wilfully to choose to mend the harmony we had ruined.
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n


\nWith these projections from the rock of speculation to help us we climbed up the three steep and difficult rungs I am going
\nto describe to you. We argued that the only way to remedy
\na note that rebels against the spirit of the composition is to
\nreduce it into harmony with that spirit, and so arrived at the conclusion that the principle of morality is to apply to human
\nlife the principles that govern the rest of the Cosmos. There you have the first rung of our ladder.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n


\nWe recommenced from this basis and by remembrance of the nature of proportion or regular variety which is the cause of
\nharmony and throughout every natural type of beauty appears in the common principle which determines their line of variance
\nfrom each other, we thought that in the elements of the Cosmos there must be such a common principle and found it to be the
\nevolution by each element of its own peculiar virtue as distinct from the peculiar virtues of every other element, and so reached
\nour second conclusion, that just as
\nastral virtue lies in the evolution by the star of the inborn qualities and powers native to its astral character, just so human virtue lies in the evolution by the human being of the inborn qualities and powers native to
\nhis humanity. This is the second rung of our ladder.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n


\nWith this second secure basis behind us, we went on to
\ndiscover that within generic types such as the star, the flower, the human being, there were individual types governed by the
\nsimilar but different principle of
\nevolving the individual as distinct from the generic virtues, or, when applied to the human being, of evolving the inborn qualities and powers native to his
\npersonality. This is the third rung of our ladder.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n


\nHave I been correct in my statement, Broome?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Perfectly correct. <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014My only quarrel with your conclusions is that  <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 59<\/span><\/font>
\n<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\nyou have wasted a couple of evenings in arriving at them. Why, except the first they are mere axioms.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Yes, to the seeing eye they are axioms, but to the unseeing eye they are paradoxes. The truths that are old and
\nstale to the philosopher, are to the multitude new and startling and dangerous. But now that we have all mounted to the same rung, let us pursue the ascent. And I suppose our immediate step will be to find whether the mere evolution of the inborn qualities
\nand powers is or is not the sole requisite for virtue. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Before we go to that, Keshav, you will have to
\nmeet a difficulty which you show every sign of evading. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>
\n\u2014Whatever difficulty there is, I am ready to solve,
\nbut I cannot guess to what you refer. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I suppose you will admit that a definition, to be
\nadequate, must have nothing vague or indefinite about it? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>
\n\u2014If there is anything vague, it must be elucidated or our statement falls to the ground.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014I dissent: a definite definition is a contradiction
\nin terms. I am for definite indefinitions.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014I am not in extremities yet, Prince Paradox.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Well now, is not your phrasing "the inborn qualities and powers native to
\nour humanity" very vague and indefinite? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Indefinite, I admit, and I cannot think that an
\nobjection but I plead not guilty to the charge of vagueness.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014You think with Treneth that a definition should
\nnot be definite? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014If by being definite is implied reduction to its
\nprimal elements you will agree with me that a definition need not
\nbe definite: or do you want me to enumerate the qualities native
\nto our humanity such as
\nphysical vigour, and the faculty of inference and sexual passion and I do not know how many more?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014You shall not escape me so easily, Keshav. You are merely spinning dialectical cobwebs which give a specious
\nappearance to the pit in which you would have us fall. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>
\n\u2014Then by pointing out the trap, you can easily
\nsweep away my sophistical cobwebs, my good Broome.   <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage – 60<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014What penalty for a pun?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014No penalty, for to punish a lie on the information
\nof Beelzebub is to do God’s work at the devil’s bidding.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes, a penalty: you shall be taken at your word. You are setting a trap for us, when you try to shuffle in your phrase about the qualities native to our humanity. If we leave this
\ninexplicit and unlimited, you will be at liberty to describe any quality you choose as a virtue and any other quality you choose as a defect by assuming in your own insinuating manner that it is
\nor is not native to our
\nhumanity. And in reality there is a very distinct gulf between those of our qualities which are native to our humanity and those others which belong to the animal nature we
\nare working out of our composition; for example between lust and love, of which one belongs to the lower animal nature and
\nthe other to the higher spiritual. You are ignoring the distinction and by ignoring it, you ignore the patent fact of evolution.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014To ignore facts is the beginning of thought. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014No, but to forget facts for the time being
\n-that is the beginning of thought.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014My dear Keshav, pray don’t trail a red paradox across the path.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014It was the other boy who did it. To return to
\nthe subject, are you really unconscious of the flagrant errors of which you have been so lavish in a little space?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I am quite unconscious of any error. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014You have made three to my knowledge, and the
\nfirst is your assumption that what is animal, cannot be human.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Can you disprove it?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Can you prove it? In the first place you cannot tell what is animal and what is not.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Why, the qualities possessed by human beings as distinct from animals are those which are not animal.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And, I suppose, qualities possessed in common by human beings and animals, are animal?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014You are right. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And such qualities ought to be worked out of our
\ncomposition?  <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 61<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes, as Tennyson says, we ought to be
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nworking out
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nThe tiger and the ape.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then we ought to get rid of fidelity, ought we not?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Why so? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Because it is a quality possessed in common by
\nthe dog and the human being, and the dog is an animal. <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>
\n\u2014Of course we should. Fidelity is a disease like
\nconscience. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And infidelity is a quality possessed in common
\nby the cat and the human being, and therefore we ought to get rid of infidelity.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014Again of course; for infidelity is merely a relative term, and if fidelity is not, then how can infidelity be?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And so we must get rid of all opposing qualities and acquire a dead neutrality? Your ambition then is not to be a personality, but to be a
\n-negative? <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014I confess you have taken me in the flank: even
\nmy paradoxes will not carry me so far.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And you, Broome, are you willing to break down
\nthe ladder by which we are climbing?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Not for a moment. What I mean is that the qualities possessed in common by all the animals and the human being are animal.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Is not the human being an animal? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes, scientifically. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014But not really? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Well, he is something more than an animal. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014You mean he has other qualities besides those which belong to the animal type?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That is what I mean. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And has not the planet other qualities besides
\nthose which belong to the astral type?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Does that warrant us in saying that a planet is not really a star?  <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 62<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014No. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And are we warranted in saying that man is not
\nreally an animal? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014We are not. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And the animal world is an element in the Cosmos, is it not?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Is it not then the virtue of an animal to evolve
\nthe qualities and powers native to his animality?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I suppose so.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And man, being an animal, ought also to evolve the qualities and powers native to his animality?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That seems to follow, but is not this to cancel our old description of human virtue and break down our second
\nrung? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014No, for just as the qualities native to a planet
\ninclude the qualities native to a star, so the qualities native to the human type include the qualities native to the animal type.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I quite agree with you now. What was my second error?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014You talked of the lower animal nature and the higher spiritual nature
\nand in so talking assumed that the qualities peculiar to the human being are higher than the qualities he shares with some or all of the animals. Is dissimulation higher
\nthan love? You reject the idea with contempt: yet dissimulation is peculiar to the human being but love, and love of the most
\nspiritual kind, he shares with the turtle-dove
\nand with the wild duck of the Indian marshes, who cannot sleep the live-long night
\nbecause Nature has severed him from his mate but ever wails across the cold and lapping water with passionate entreaty that
\nshe may solace his anguish with even a word, and travellers straying in the forest hear his forlorn cry “Love, speak to me!”
\nNo, we can only say of varying qualities that one is beautiful and another less beautiful, or not beautiful at all; and beauty
\ndoes not reside in being animal or being more than animal but in something very different.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014And my third error? <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage – 63<\/span><\/font>
\n<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Your third error was to confound evolution with elimination.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014And does it not really come to that? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014The vulgar opinion, which finds a voice as usual
\nin Tennyson -what opinion of the British average does he not echo?
\n-the vulgar opinion learns that the principle of evolution or gradual perfection is the reigning principle of life and adapts the idea to its own stupid fallacy that perfection implies the
\nelimination of all that is vivid and picturesque and likely to foster a personality. Evolution does not eliminate but perfects.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014But surely perfection tends to eliminate what is imperfect?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Oh I don’t deny that we have lost our tails, but so has a Manx cat. <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014Dear me! that is a fruitful idea. A dissertation proving that the Manx cat is the crowning effort of Evolution
\nmight get me a Fellowship.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014It would deserve it for its originality. Moreover if we have lost our tails, we have also lost our wings.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014I maintain that the tails are the more serious loss.
\nWings would have been useful and we do not want them but we
\ndo want tails, for they would have been lovely appendages and a
\nmagnificent final flourish to the beauty of the human figure. Just fancy the Dean and Provost pacing up to the Communion Table
\nwith a fine long tail swishing about their ears! What a glorious lesson! What a sublime and instructive spectacle!
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014You are incorrigibly frivolous, Treneth. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014If Prince
\nParadox is frivolous, he is virtuous, in so far as he is developing the virtue most intimately native to his
\npersonality; and the inquiry is dull enough at present to bear
\noccasional touches of enlivening laughter.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yet the inquiry must pass through stifling underground galleries and to avoid them is puerile.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014I am at one with you, but if we must dive under
\nthe ground, there is no need to linger there. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nEvolution does not eliminate, but perfects. The cruelty that
\nblossoms out in the tiger, has its seeds deep down in the nature <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage – 64<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\t\t\t
\n<\/i>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/i> <\/span>
\n<\/font>
\nof man and if it is minimised in one generation will expand in
\nanother, nor is it possible for man to eradicate cruelty without
\npulling up in the same moment the bleeding roots of his own
\nbeing. Yet the brute ferocity that in the tiger is graceful and just
\nand artistic, is in the man savage and crude and inharmonious and must be cultured and refined, until it becomes a virtue and
\nfits as gracefully and harmlessly into the perfect character, as its twin-brother physical courage and physical love, its remote
\nrelative. <\/font>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014You are growing almost as paradoxical as Prince Paradox, Keshav.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Look for
\nTruth and you will find her at the bottom of a paradox. Are you convinced that animal qualities are not the worse for being animal?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Perfectly convinced. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And here I
\ncannot do better than quote a sentence that like so many of Meredith’s sentences, goes like a knife to the root of the matter. “As she grows in the flesh when
\ndiscreetly tended, nature is unimpeachable, flowerlike, yet not too decoratively a flower; you must have her with the stem,
\nthe thorns, the roots, and the fat bedding of roses.” And since I have quoted that immortal chapter so overloaded with truth
\ncritical, truth psychologic and truth philosophic, let me use two
\nother sentences to point the moral of this argument and bid
\nyou embrace “Reality’s infinite sweetness” and “touch the skirts
\nof Philosophy by sharing her hatred of the sham decent, her
\nderision of sentimentalism.” May we not now ascend to the fourth rung?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes, I think we may go on. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014I am especially eager to do so because I am more
\nand more convinced that our description of virtue is no longer adequate: for if the only requisite is to evolve our innate qualities,
\nwill it not be enough to be merely cruel and not to be cruel in a refined and beautiful manner?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Plainly it will. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And is it really enough to be merely cruel?<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014No, for to be inartistic is the only sin.  <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage – 65<\/span><\/font>
\n<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Your paradox cuts to the heart of the truth. Can you tell me, Broome, whether is the rose more beautiful than the
\nbramble or the bramble than the rose? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Obviously the rose than the bramble.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And why is this? Is it not because the thorn develops unduly the thorn and does not harmonize it with leaves but is careless of proportion and the eternal principle of harmony, and is beautiful indeed as an element in the harmony of plants
\nbut has no pretensions to personal beauty but the rose subdues the thorn into harmony with the leaf and the blossom and is
\nperfectly beautiful in herself no less than as an element in the harmony of flowers?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I believe you are right. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And must not cruelty, the thorn of our beautiful
\nhuman rose, be subdued into harmony with his other qualities and
\namong them tenderness and clemency and generous forbearance and other qualities seemingly the most opposed to cruelty and then only will it be a real virtue but until then nothing more
\nthan a potential virtue? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014You are right; then only will it be a real virtue.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014So we must modify our description of virtue by affixing an epithet to the word “evolution”, and preferably I
\nthink the epithet “perfect” which does not imply size or degree or intensity or anything but justness of harmony, for example
\nin a poem, which is not
\ncalled perfect when it is merely long-drawn-out or overflowing with passion or gorgeous even to
\nswooning, but when it blends all the elements of beauty into an irreproachable harmony. We shall then describe virtue as the
\nperfect evolution by the human being of the inborn qualities and powers native to his personality.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014With that I have no quarrel, but am I too inquisitive when I ask you how cruelty and tenderness can live
\ntogether? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014My dear Broome, I shall never think you too
\ninquisitive but above all things desire that you should have a clear intelligence of my meaning. Have you never learned by
\nexperience or otherwise how a girl will torment her favoured   <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage – 66<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\t\t\t
\n<\/i>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/i> <\/span>
\n<\/font>
\n
\nlover by a delicate and impalpable evasion of his desires and will not give him even the loan of a kiss without wooing, but must be infinitely entreated and stretch him on the rack of a half-serious refusal and torture him with the pangs of hope just as a cat will
\ntorture a mouse, yet all the while means to give him everything he asks for and would indeed be more bitterly disappointed than
\nhe, if any accident precluded her from making him happy?
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes, I know, some women are like that.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014If you had said most women were like that, you would have hit the truth more nearly. And this trait in women
\nwe impute to feminine insincerity and to maiden coyness and
\nto everything but the real motive, and that is the primitive and
\neternal passion of cruelty appearing in the coarse fibre of man
\nas crude and inartistic barbarity, but in the sweet and delicate
\nsoul of woman as a refined and beautiful playfulness and the inseparable correlative of a gentle and suave disposition.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014But I am inclined to credit the girl with the purpose of giving a keener relish to the gratified desire by enhancing
\nthe difficulty of attainment, and in that case she will be actuated not by cruelty but always by tenderness.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014You think she is actuated by the principles of Political Economy? I cannot agree with you.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014And I deny the truth of the principle. A precious thing easily acquired is treasured for its beauty and worth, but if
\nacquired with pain and labour, the memory of the effort leaves a bad taste in the mouth which it is difficult to expunge. I read
\nVergil at school and never read a line of him now but Catullus I skimmed through in my arm-chair and love and appreciate.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Your distinction is subtle and suggestive, Treneth, but it never occurred to me in that light before.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014It never occurred to me <\/i>in that light before. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Yet I do not think it applies to our lovers, and it does not apply always, for the poem I have perfected with labour and thought is surely dearer to me than the light carol thrown
\noff in the happy inspiration of the moment. Rapid generalities seldom cover more than a few cases. So I will take Broome on
\nhis own ground, not because I cannot adduce other instances of
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 67<\/span><\/font>
\n<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\ncruelty and tenderness living in wedded felicity, but because I do not want to fatigue myself by recollecting them.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nAnd now, Broome, will you say that a tyrant who desires to give his favourite a keener relish of luxury and strains him on the rack and washes him with scalding oil and dries him with nettles and flays him with whips and then only comforts him with the
\nluxury of downy pillows and velvet cushions and perfect repose, has not been actuated by cruelty but always by tenderness?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Oh, of course, if you cite extravagant instances–!
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And will you say that the girl who wishes to give her kiss a sweeter savour on the lips of her favourite and strains him on the rack of suspense and washes him with the
\nscalding oil of despair and dries him with the nettles of hope and flays him with the whips of desire and then only comforts
\nhim with the velvet luxury of a kiss and the downy cushion of an embrace and the perfect repose of desire fulfilled, has not been
\nactuated by cruelty but always by tenderness and not rather that all unnecessary pain is cruelty to the sufferer?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Certainly, unnecessary pain is cruelty. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Are you perfectly satisfied?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Perfectly satisfied. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014We have discovered then that perfect evolution is
\nrequisite for perfect virtue, but I do not think we have distilled
\nits full flavour into the epithet. Or are you of the opinion that
\nwe want nothing more than the harmonizing of all the inborn
\nqualities? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I cannot think of any other requisite. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Can you, Treneth?<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014I was much attracted by something you said in the beginning about the elements of beauty and I suspect it is
\nthese we want now. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014You have exactly hit it. We described it as not
\nmerely harmony in effect
\nand proportion in detail but as possessed of one of the three elements, colour, perfume and form,
\nand in most types combining at least two and in many all three. But in confining our outlook to harmony and proportion we
\nhave talked as if human virtue were merely possessed of one <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage – 68<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\t\t\t
\n<\/i>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/i> <\/span>
\n<\/font>
\n
\nof the elements; yet is there any reason to suppose that human
\nvirtue does not possess the whole three?
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014No reason whatever. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Well, might
\nwe not inquire whether it does possess all three, and if it does not, whether it may not legitimately or, to speak more properly, may not artistically possess all three?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014By all means, let us inquire. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And if we find that it may artistically possess
\nthem, then, if our theory that beauty should be the governing principle in all things, is really correct, must we not say that they
\nnot only may but ought to possess all three? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Evidently we must.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014That is as plain as a Cambridge laundress. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And it is
\nclear that all qualities may, with diligence, be entirely divested of colour, form and perfume, and when
\nthey have reached the stage of wanting every single element of beauty, we need take no notice of them, for they have no longer anything to do with virtue, until they begin to
\nredevelop. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Obviously, for we are talking of perfect virtue or
\nperfect beauty of character.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Now if we have not the qualities requisite for a given action, we shall not achieve the action, supposing we attempt it, but shall only achieve a blunder, is it not so?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Clearly. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014But if we have the qualities, we are likely to
\nachieve the action? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Necessarily. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then is not action the outward manifestation of a quality, and I include in action any movement physical or
\nintellectual which is visible or whose effects are visible to the human understanding?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes, but may not an action manifest the want of a quality?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014No doubt, but we need not touch on those, since we have not to develop defects in order to be virtuous, or do
\nyou think we need? <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage – 69<\/span><\/font>
\n<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014Clearly not: negatives cannot be virtues. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014That is a
\nvery just sentiment and I shall have occasion to recall it. Now is not a battle the outward manifestation
\nof the warlike qualities?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Evidently. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And composition the outward manifestation of
\nthe poetical qualities, I mean, of course, the qualities of a maker?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And do we not mean that the poetical qualities express themselves in composition just as the sidereal in a star?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014We do. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And is not
\nthe star the form of the sidereal qualities? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then is not composition the form of the poetical qualities?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That follows. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And battle of the warlike qualities?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That also. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then is not action the form of a quality, that is
\nto say the shape in which it expresses itself?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014So it seems. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014So we find that virtue has a form. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014But may not qualities have a form apart from action? <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014For example, thought.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014But the expression of thought is included in action for our purpose.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014For our purpose only. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014As you
\nplease. I merely want to use one projection from the rock and not imperil my neck by clutching two in one hand.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014I am satisfied. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014I suppose, Broome, you mean by form a concrete
\nshape? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I suppose so. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then you must see that qualities unexpressed in   <\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 70<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\t\t\t
\n<\/i>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/i> <\/span>
\n<\/font>
\n
\naction are wholly chaotic and formless; and I mean within the scope of action, the expression of thought and the act of sitting or standing or lying down and the act of being indolent and
\nanything that by any legitimate stretch of language may be called
\nan act. <\/font>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I too am satisfied. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then we are agreed that a quality must possess form, that is to say, express itself in action or it will not be a
\nvirtue? <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014May it not prefer to express itself in perfume and
\ncolour? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014I had forgotten that.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nNow if we inquire what colour is, we shall see that it is nothing concrete but merely an effect on the retina of the eye,
\nand its prosperity lies in the eye that sees it, and if the retina of the eye is perfect, every different shade impresses itself, but if imperfect, then the eye is blind to one or more colours. Will you agree with me when I say that anything to which we give the
\nname of colour must be the reverse of concrete? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That follows.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then the colour of a virtue must be the reverse of concrete.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Evidently. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Now let us take metaphor into our counsel, for
\nmetaphor has sometimes an
\nintuitive way of chiming consonantly with the truth; and metaphor tells us that we often talk of a scarlet and sinful character and of a white and innocent character and of a neutral and drab-coloured character, and
\nassign various colours to various women and call one woman a splendid carnation, for we are fond of comparing women to
\nflowers and another a beautiful and gorgeous rose, and a third
\na pure and sinless lily and yet another a modest violet betraying
\nherself only by her fragrance, and are all the while implying that
\nto the imaginative eye, if the retina is perfect, various characters
\nhave various colours. Do you follow me? <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>
\n\u2014Yes, the idea is fine. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014And true. <\/span>
\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nPage – 71<\/span><\/font>
\n<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014That is immaterial. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And character is the composition of qualities just
\nas a poem is the composition of sounds and a painting the composition of pigments.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes, just in that sense. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then is it not plain that if a character has colour,
\nthe qualities of which it is composed must have colour.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I think it is.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And colour is not concrete, but an effect on the retina of the eye?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014So we said. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then is not the colour of a quality its effect on
\nthe retina of the imaginative eye?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And a quality in itself may be formless? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then to the imaginative eye is not a quality pure colour?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I suppose so. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014But the
\nimaginative eye is not one with the perceptive eye, for it perceives what
\ndoes not exist, but the perceptive eye only what does exist.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014You are right. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014I mean that nothing without form can have an
\neffect on the retina of the perceptive eye.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That is evident.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then to be visible to the perceptive eye, the colour of a quality, which is really the soul of the quality, must
\nsuffuse the action which expresses it, which is the body of the quality.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014It must. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And is colour without form a perfect type of
\nbeauty? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014No. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Then a quality must suffuse its body with its soul, or, since the word action is growing ambiguous, its expression
\nwith its colour. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 72<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

<\/font> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Yes, I agree to that. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And so the quality will so suffuse its expression
\nas to be visible to the perceptive eye, just as the soul of a rose, which is the effect on the retina of the imaginative eye, suffuses
\nher form with colour which is the effect on the retina of the perceptive eye, and varies according to the variety of colours,
\nand if two roses have the same form but one is crimson and the other yellow, the soul of the red rose is seen to be scarlet with
\nunholy passion, but the soul of the yellow rose is seen to be dull and blanched and languid, like the reaction after intensely voluptuous enjoyment.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nAnd so virtue may possess both form and colour, and, I
\nsuppose, may artistically possess
\nboth, or will colour be detrimental to the perfection of virtue as tinting to the perfection of
\nsculpture? <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014By no means; for qualities are not hewn out of
\nmarble or cast in beaten gold or chiselled in Indian ivory, but are moulded in the delicate and flower-like texture of human
\nemotion and, if colourless, are scarcely beautiful. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>
\n\u2014Then we are agreed that a quality must possess
\nboth form and colour, or will not be a perfect virtue? <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>
\n\u2014Plainly. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I am afraid I hardly understand what we are saying.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014I am certain I do not; but we must follow where the argument leads us, and I have a glimmering intelligence
\nwhich I hope to see expanding into perfect daylight; but I do not want any side issue to distract my thoughts and will go on to inquire what is the perfume of a quality: for I am like a frail canoe that wavers through a tranquil to be buffeted outside by
\nthe swelling waters and have with difficulty plunged through these two waves of form and colour, when I see rolling down on me with its curled forehead this third wave of perfume which
\nI do not hope to outlive. But to the venturous Fortune is as
\ncompliant as a captive Briseis and I will boldly plunge into the crash of the breaking water and call manner the perfume of a quality, for in manner resides the subtle aroma and sense of
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 73<\/span><\/font>
\n<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\nsomething delicious but impalpable which is what we mean by perfume.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014With your usual good luck you have notched your mark in the centre.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014So by audacity I have outlived the third wave and am more than ever convinced that you must take liberties with
\nFortune before she will love you.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nI suppose you will agree with me that for a virtue to be
\nbeautiful, there must be a perfect harmony in the elements of beauty, and the colour not too subdued as in the clover nor too
\nglaring as in the sunflower, and the perfume not too slight to be noticeable as in the pansy nor too intense for endurance as
\nin the meadow-sweet, and the form not too monotonous as in
\na canal or too irregular as in the leafless tree, but all perfectly
\nharmonious in themselves and in fit proportion to each other?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014From our description of beauty, that is evident. <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014I plead not guilty on behalf of the sunflower, but agree with the sentiment.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014And now since Broome and I are at a loss to conjecture what we mean, do you not think we shall be enlightened by a concrete example?<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tTreneth <\/i>\u2014It is likely.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014Let us at least make an attempt. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014We will call on the stage the girl and her lover,
\nwho have been so useful to us. It is clear at once that if she is not virtuous but harmonizes the elements of beauty unskilfully,
\nthe passion of her favourite will wither and not expand. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014That is clear.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014What then will be her manner of harmonizing them? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tWilson <\/i>\u2014I return the question to you. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\tKeshav <\/i>\u2014Well now, will she not harmonize the phases of
\nher dalliance, and hesitate on the brink of yielding just at the
\nproper pitch of his despair, and elude his kiss just at the proper
\npitch of his expectancy, and fan his longing when it sinks, and check it when it rises, and surrender herself when he is smouldering with hopeless passion?
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 74<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nWilson <\/i>\u2014 That is probably what she will do. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nKeshav <\/i>\u2014 And is not that to cast her dalliance in a beautiful
\nform? <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nWilson <\/i>\u2014 It is. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nKeshav <\/i>\u2014 But she will not do this grossly and palpably, but
\nwill lead up to everything by looks and tones and gestures so as to glide from one to the other without his perceiving and will
\nsweeten the hard and obvious form by the flavour of the simple
\nand natural, yet will be all the while the veriest
\ncoquette and artist in flirtation. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nWilson <\/i>\u2014 Yes, that is what a girl like that would do.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nKeshav <\/i>\u2014 And is not that to give a subtle perfume to her
\ndalliance?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nWilson <\/i>\u2014 I suppose it is. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nKeshav <\/i>\u2014 But if she is perfect in the art, will she not, even
\nwhen repulsing him most cruelly, allow a secret tenderness to run
\nthrough her words and manner, and when she is most tenderly
\nyielding, will she not show the sharp edge of asperity through the
\nflowers, and in a word allow the blended cruelty and sweetness
\nof her soul to be just palpable to his perceptive senses? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nWilson <\/i>\u2014 She will.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nKeshav <\/i>\u2014 And is not that to suffuse her dalliance with
\ncolour?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nWilson <\/i>\u2014 Plainly. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nKeshav <\/i>\u2014 And moreover she will not allow her affectation
\nof the natural to be too imperfect to conceal her art or so heavily
\nscented as to betray the intention, or the colour to be unnoticeable from slightness or from intensity to spoil the delicate
\neffect of her perverseness, or the form to engross too largely the
\nattention, or indeed any element to fall too short or carry too
\nfar, but will subdue the whole trio into a just and appropriate
\nharmony. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\nWilson <\/i>\u2014 If she wants to be a perfect flirt, that is what she
\nwill do. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nKeshav <\/i>\u2014 And if coquetry is native in her, to be a perfect
\nflirt will be highest pinnacle of virtue.
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\nWilson <\/i>\u2014 That follows from the premisses.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 75<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
\nKeshav <\/i>\u2014 And so here we have a concrete example of perfect virtue, and begin to understand what we mean by the perfect
\nevolution of an inborn quality, or are you still unenlightened?
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nWilson <\/i>\u2014 No, I perfectly understand.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nKeshav <\/i>\u2014 Hither then we have climbed with much more
\nlaborious effort and have almost cut our hands in two on the
\nprojections, but do at last really stand on the fourth and last
\nrung of the ladder.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nWilson <\/i>\u2014 The last? I rather fancy we are only half way up
\nand shall have to ascend another three or four rungs before we
\nare kissed by the fresh winds that carol on the brow. I have
\nmany things to ask you and you have as yet spoken nothing of
\nthe relations between man and man and how this new morality is to be modified by the needs of society and what justice means
\nand what self-sacrifice and indeed a thousand things which will
\nneed many hours to investigate.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nKeshav <\/i>\u2014 I am Frankenstein saddled with a monster of my
\nown making and have made a man to my ruin and a young man to my hurt. Nevertheless “lead on, monster: we’ll follow.”
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\nTreneth <\/i>\u2014Will you not rest on the fourth rung and have a cup of tea in my rooms before you resume?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nKeshav <\/i>\u2014 But shall we not put a stop to your spheroids and trianguloids and asinoids and all the other figures of mathematical ingenuity?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nTreneth <\/i>\u2014I am at present watching a body which revolves on six screws and is consequently very drunk, and a day off
\nwill sensibly assist my speculations. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nKeshav <\/i>\u2014 So let it be, but before we go I may as well recall to you at a glance what is our fourth rung.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nWe have expanded our description of virtue as the evolution
\nof the inborn qualities native to our personality, by throwing in
\nthe epithet “perfect”, and have interpreted the full flavour of the epithet in words to the effect that
\nqualities in their evolved perfection must be harmonious one with another and have a beautiful form or expression, and a beautiful colour or revelation of
\nthe soul, and a beautiful perfume or justly-attempered manner and must subdue all three into a just and appropriate harmony.   <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nPage \u2013 76<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nWith this conviction in our souls
\nwe will journey on, despising the censure and alarm of the reputable, and evolve
\nour inborn qualities and powers into a beautiful and harmonious
\nperfection, until we walk delicately like living poems through a radiant air, and will not stunt the growth of any branch or
\nblossom, but will prefer to the perishable laurels of this world a living crown of glory, and hear through the chaotic murmur of the ages the solemn question of Christ “What profiteth it
\na man if he own the whole world and lose his own soul?” and will
\nanswer according to the melodious doctrines of philosophy and acquire by a life of perfect beauty the peace of God that passeth
\nall understanding.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n__________<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 77<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

\t\t\t<\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Harmony of Virtue    Book One   Keshav Ganesh \u2014 Broome Wilson   Keshav \u2014 My dear Broome, how opportune is your arrival! You…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[49],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2411","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-01-early-cultural-writings","wpcat-49-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2411","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2411"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2411\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11501,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2411\/revisions\/11501"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2411"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2411"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2411"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}