{"id":48,"date":"2013-07-13T01:25:33","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:25:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=48"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:25:33","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:25:33","slug":"03-harmony-of-virtue-vol-03-the-harmony-of-virtue-volume-03","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/03-the-harmony-of-virtue-volume-03\/03-harmony-of-virtue-vol-03-the-harmony-of-virtue-volume-03","title":{"rendered":"-03_Harmony of Virtue.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n

\nSECTION
\n<\/span>ONE<\/span><\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\nTHE HARMONY OF VIRTUE<\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n1890-92<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n"I read more than once Plato’s Republic<\/i> and
\nSymposium<\/i>, but
\nonly extracts from his other writings. It is true that under his
\nimpress I rashly started writing at the age of 18 an explanation
\nof the cosmos on the foundation of the principle of Beauty and
\nHarmony, but I never got beyond the first three or four chapters."<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nFrom notes dictated by Sri Aurobindo<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

\n

 
\nBook One<\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nKeshav Ganesh <\/i>[Desai<\/i>] \u2014
\nBroome  Wilson<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : My dear Broome, how opportune is your arrival!
\nYou will save me from the malady of work, it may be, from the
\ndangerous opium of solitude. How is it I have not seen you for
\nthe last fortnight?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: Surely, Keshav, you can understand the exigencies
\nof the Tripos.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Ah, you are a happy man. You can do what you
\nare told. But put off your academical aspirations until tomorrow
\nand we will talk. The cigarettes are on the mantlepiece \u2014 excuse
\nmy laziness! \u2014 and the lucifers are probably stocked in the
\nfruit-shelf. And here is coffee and a choice between cake and
\nbiscuits. Are you perfectly happy?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : In Elysium. But do not let the cigarettes run dry,
\nthe alliance of a warm fire and luxurious cushions will be too
\nstrong for my vigilance. Do you mean to tell me you can work
\nhere?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Life is too precious to be wasted in labour, and
\nabove all this especial moment of life, the hour after dinner,
\nwhen we have only just enough energy to be idle. Why, it is only
\nfor this I tolerate the wearisome activity of the previous twelve
\nhours.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : You are a living paradox. Is it not just like you to
\npervert indolence into the aim of life?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Why, what other aim can there be?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Duty, I presume.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: I cannot consent to cherish an opinion until I realise
\nthe meaning of duty.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: I suppose I have pledged myself to an evening of
\nmetaphysics. We do our duty when we do what we ought to do.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: A very lucid explanation; but how do we know that
\nwe are doing what we ought to do.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: Why, we must do what society requires of us.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: And must we do that even when society requires<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u20131<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nsomething dissonant with our nature or
\nrepugnant to our convictions?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I conceive so.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: And if society require us to sacrifice our children or to compel a widow to burn herself we are bound to comply?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: No; we should only do what is just and good.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: Then the fiat of society is not valid; duty really
\ndepends on something quite different.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: It appears so.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: Then what is your idea of that something quite
\ndifferent on which duty depends?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: Would it be wrong to select morality?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: Let us inquire. But before that is possible let me
\nknow what morality is, or I shall not know my own meaning.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: Morality is the conduct our ethical principles require
\nof us.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: Take me with you. This ethical principle is then
\npersonal, not universal?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: I think so. For different localities different ethics.
\nI am not a bigot to claim infallibility for my own country.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: So we must act in harmony with the code of ethics
\nreceived as ideal by the society we move in?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: I suppose it comes to that.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: But, my dear Broome, does not that bring us back
\nto your previous theory that we should do what society requires
\nof us?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: I am painfully afraid it does.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: And we are agreed that this is an accurate plumb-line?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: You see the consequence?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: I see. I must change my ground and say that we
\nmust do what our personal sense of the right and just requires of
\nus.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: For example if my personal sense of the right and
\njust, tells me that to lie is meritorious, is it my duty to lie to the
\nbest of my ability.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: But no one could possibly think that.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u20132<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I think that the soul of
\nIthacan Ulysses has not yet
\ncompleted the cycle of his transmigrations, nor would I wrong
\nthe authority of Hippias by ignoring his conclusions. <\/b> Or why go
\nto dead men for an example ? The mould has not fallen on the
\nmusical lips of the Irish Plato nor is Dorian Gray forgotten in the
\nhundred tongues of Rumour.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : If our sense of right is really so prone to error, we
\nshould not rely upon it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then to quote Mrs. Mountstuart, you have just
\nsucceeded in telling me nothing. Duty is not based on our personal sense of the right and just.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I allow it is not.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : But surely there is some species of touchstone by
\nwhich we can discern between the false and the true ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : If there is, I cannot discover it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Ah, but do try again. There is luck in odd numbers.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : The only other touchstone I can imagine is religion; and now I come to think of it, religion is an infallible
\ntouchstone.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I am glad you think so; for all I know at present
\nyou are very probably right. But have you any reason for your
\nconviction ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : A code of morality built
\nupon religion has no commerce with the demands of society or our personal sense of the
\nright and just, but is the very law of God.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I will not at present deny the reality of a personal
\nGod endowed with passions and prejudices, that is not indispensable to our argument. But are there not many religions and
\nhave they not all their peculiar schemes of morality ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : No doubt, but some are more excellent than others.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And do you cherish the opinion that your own peculiar creed \u2014 I believe it to be Christianity without Christ \u2014 is
\nindubitably the most excellent ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : By far the most excellent.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And your own ethical scheme,
\nagain the Christian without the emotional element, the best of all ethical
\nschemes ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : <\/i> I have no doubt of it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u20133<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And they are many who dissent from you, are they
\nnot?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/b><\/i> : <\/b>Oh without doubt.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And you would impose your ethical scheme on
\nthem?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : No; but I imagine it to be the goal whither all
\nhumanity is tending.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : That is a very different question. <\/b> Do you think that
\nwhen a man’s life is in harmony with his own creed, but not with yours, he is
\ntherefore not virtuous, or in your own phrase, deviates from his duty?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : God forbid!<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then you really do believe that a man does his duty
\nwhen he lives in harmony with the ethical scheme patronised by
\nhis own religion, as a Mohammadan if he follows the injunctions
\nof the Prophet, a Hindu if he obeys the Vedic Scriptures, a
\nChristian if his life is a long self-denial.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That I admit.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then the ethical scheme of Islam is as much the
\nvery law of God, as the ethical scheme of Christianity, and the
\nmorals of Hinduism are not less divine than the morals of Islam.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson
\n<\/i>:
\n<\/i>I hardly understand how you arrive at that conclusion.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav<\/i><\/font>
\n<\/i>:
\n<\/i><\/font>Did you not say, Broome, that religion is an infallible test of duty, because it is the very law of God?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: <\/i>I still say so.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav<\/i><\/font>
\n<\/font>: And that everyone must adopt his own religion as<\/font>
\n<\/font>the test of what he should do or not do.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I cannot deny <\/b>it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then must you not either admit the reason to be
\ninvalid, or that any one’s peculiar religion, whatever species it
\nmay belong to, is the very law of God.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I prefer the second branch of the dilemma.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : But though every religion is the very law of God,
\nnevertheless you will often find one enjoining a practice which to
\nanother is an abomination. And can God contradict himself?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : You mistake the point. Islam, Hinduism, indeed
\nall scriptural religions were given because the people professing<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u20134<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthem were not capable of receiving higher light.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Is not God omnipotent?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : A limited God is not God at all.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then was it not within his omnipotent power to so
\nguide the world that there would be no necessity for different
\ndealings with different people ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : It was within his power, but he did not choose.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Exactly: he did not choose.
\nHe of set purpose preferred a method which he knew would lead him to falsehood and
\ninjustice.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : What words you use. The truth is merely that God
\nset man to develop under certain conditions and suited his methods to those conditions.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Oh, then God is practically a scientist making an
\nexperiment; and you demand for him reverence and obedience
\nfrom the creature vivisected. Then I can only see one other
\nexplanation. Having created certain conditions he could not
\nreceive the homage of mankind without various and mutually
\ndissentient revelations of his will. Now imagine a physician with
\ntheosophical power who for purposes of gain so modified the climatic features of
\nJudea and Arabia that the same disease required two distinct methods of treatment in the one and the
\nother. This he does wilfully and deliberately and with foreknowledge of the result. As soon as his end is assured our physician goes to Judea and gives the people a drug which, he tells
\nthem, is the sole remedy for their disease but all others are the
\nproperty of quacks and will eventually induce increase of the
\nmalady. Five years later the same physician goes off to Arabia
\nand here he gives them another drug of an accurately opposite
\nnature about which he imparts the same instructions. Now if we
\nremember that the climatic conditions which necessitated the
\ndeception were the deliberate work of the deceiver, shall we not
\ncall that physician a liar and an impostor? Is God a liar? or an
\nimpostor ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : We must not measure the Almighty by our poor
\nmortal standards.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Pshaw, Broome, if the legislator overrides his own
\nlaws, how can you hope that others will observe them ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u20135<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nWilson <\/i> : But if God in his incomprehensible wisdom and
\ngoodness…<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Incomprehensible indeed. If there is any meaning in words the God you have inscribed can neither be wise nor
\ngood. Will you show me the flaw in my position ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I cannot discover it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then your suspicion is born of your disgust at the
\nconclusion to which I have forced you, and your dislike of my
\nmethod: for I am taking nothing for granted, but am going to the
\nroot of things.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I am afraid it is.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Well, shall we go on with the discussion or should
\nI stop here?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Certainly let us go on and not shy at a truth however disagreeable.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : First let me give you a glass of this champagne. I
\ndo not keep any of those infernal concoctions of alcohol and
\nperdition of which you in Europe are so enamoured. Now here
\nis the conclusion I draw from all that we have been saying: There
\nare two positions open to you. One is that of the fanatic. You
\nmay say that you and those who believe with you are the specially
\nchosen of 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 fate and go into
\nthe outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. If that is the line you take up, my answer is that God
\nis an unjust God and the wise will prefer the torment of the
\ndamned to any communion with him. The fanatic of course
\nwould be ready with his retort that the potter has a right to do
\nwhat he will with his vessels. At that point I usually abandon the
\nconversation; to tell him that a metaphor is no argument would
\nbe futile. Even if he saw it, he would reply that God’s ways are
\nincomprehensible and therefore we should accept them without
\na murmur. That is a position which I have not the patience to
\nundermine, nor if I had it, have I sufficient self-control to preserve my gravity under the ordeal.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I at least, Keshav, am not in danger of burdening
\nyour patience. I have no wish to evade you by such a back-<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u20136<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ndoor as that.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then is it not plain to you, that you must abandon
\nthe religious basis as unsound?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, for you have convinced me that I have been
\ntalking nonsense the whole evening.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Not at all, Broome; only you like most men have
\nnot accustomed yourself to clear and rigorous thought.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I am afraid logic is not sufficiently studied.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Is it not studied too much ? Logic dwindles the
\nriver of thought into a mere canal. The logician thinks so accurately that he is seldom right. No, what we want is some more
\nof that sense which it is a mockery to call common.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : But if we were to eliminate the divine element from
\nthe balance, would not religion be a possible basis?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : No, for religious ethics
\nwould then be a mere expression of will on the part of Society. And that is open to the
\ncriticism that the commands of Society may be revolting to the
\nright and just or inconsistent with the harmony of life.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : But supposing everyone to interpret for himself
\nthe ethics approved by his own creed ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : The Inquisitors did that. Do you consider the
\nresult justified the method ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : The Inquisitors?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : They were a class of men than whom you would
\nfind none more scrupulous or in their private life more gentle,
\nchivalrous and honourable or in their public conduct more
\nobedient to their sense of duty. They tortured the bodies of a
\nfew that the souls of thousands might live. They did murder in
\nthe sight of the Lord and looked upon their handiwork and saw
\nthat it was good.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : My dear Keshav, surely that is extravagant.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Why, do you imagine that they were actuated by
\nany other motive?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, by the desire to preserve the integrity of the
\nChurch.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And is not that the first duty of every Christian ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Only by the permissible method of persuasion.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : That is your opinion, but was it theirs? Duty is a<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u20137<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nphantasm spawned in the green morass of human weakness and
\nignorance, but perpetuated by vague thought and vaguer sentiment. And so long as we are imperatively told to do any duty
\nwithout knowing why we should as is the argument of private
\njudgement, the cruelty of social coercion will be the sole arbiter
\nand the saint will be a worse enemy of virtue than the sinner.
\nWill you have another cigarette ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Thanks, I will. But, Keshav, I am not disposed to
\nleave the discussion with this purely negative result. Surely there
\nis some guiding principle which should modify and harmonise
\nour actions. Or are you favourable to an anarchy in morals?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : No, Broome. If culture and taste were universal,
\nprinciple would then be a superfluous note in the world’s composition. But so long as men are crude, without tact, formless,
\nincapable of a balanced personality, so long the banner of the
\nideal must be waved obtrusively before the eyes of men and
\neducation remain a necessity, so long must the hateful phrase,
\na higher morality, mean something more than empty jargon
\nof socialists. Yes, I think there is that guiding principle you speak
\nof, or at least we may arrive at something like it, if we look long
\nenough.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Then do look for it, Keshav. I am sure you will
\nfind something original and beautiful. Come, I will be idle tonight and abandon the pursuit of knowledge to waste time in
\nthe pursuit of thought. Begin and I will follow my leader.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Before I begin, let me remove one or two of those
\npopular fallacies born of indolence which encumber the wings of the speculator.
\nAnd first let me say, I will not talk of duty: it is a word I do not like, for it is always used in antagonism to
\npleasure, and brings back the awesome savour of the days when
\nto do what I was told, was held out as my highest legitimate
\naspiration. I will use instead the word virtue, whose inherent
\nmeaning is manliness, in other words, the perfect evolution by
\nthe human being of the inborn qualities and powers native to his
\nhumanity. Another thing I would like to avoid is the assumption that there is somewhere and somehow an ideal morality,
\nwhich draws an absolute and a sharp distinction between good
\nand evil. Thus it is easy to say that chastity is good, licence is<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u20138<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nevil. But what if some one were to protest that this is a mistake,
\nthat chastity is bad, licence is good. How are you going to refute
\nhim ? If you appeal to authority he will deny that your authority
\nis valid; if you quote religion he will remind you that your religion is one of a multitude; if you talk of natural perception, he
\nwill retort that natural perception cancels itself by arriving at
\nopposite results. How will you unseat him from his position?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, you can show that good is profitable, while
\nevil is hurtful.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : You mean the appeal to utility?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : That is without doubt an advance. Now can you
\nshow that good is profitable, that is to say, has good effects,
\nwhile evil is hurtful, that is to say, has bad effects?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Easily. Take your instance of chastity and licence.
\nOne is the ground-work of that confidence which is the basis of
\nmarriage and therefore the keystone of society; the other kills
\nconfidence and infects the community with a bad example.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : You fly too fast for me, Broome. You say chastity
\nis the basis of marriage ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Surely you will not deny it?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And licence in one leads to prevalent unchastity?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : It has that tendency.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And you think you have
\nproved chastity to be profitable and licence hurtful?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Why, yes. <\/b> Do not you?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : No, my friend; for I have not convinced myself
\nthat marriage is a good effect and prevalent unchastity a bad
\neffect.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Only paradox can throw any doubt on that.
\nAssuredly you will not deny that without marriage and public
\ndecency, society is unimaginable.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I suppose you will allow that in Roman society
\nunder the Emperors marriage was extant ? And yet will you tell
\nme that in those ages chastity was the basis of marriage ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : <\/i> I should say that marriage in the real sense of the
\nword was not extant.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then what becomes of your postulate that without<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u20139<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nmarriage and public decency society is unimaginable?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Can you bestow the name on the world of Nero and
\nCaracalla.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Certainly if I understand the significance of the
\nword. Wherever the mutual dependence of men builds up a
\ncommunity cemented by a chain of rights and liabilities, that I
\nimagine is a society.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Certainly that is a society.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And will you then hesitate to concede the name to
\nimperial Italy?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, but you will not deny that from the unreality
\nof marriage and the impudent disregard of common decency \u2014
\nat once its cause and effect \u2014there grew up a prevalence of
\nmoral corruption, but for which the Roman world would not
\nhave succumbed with such nerveless ease to Scythia and its
\npopulous multitudes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : What then ? I do not deny it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Was not that a bad effect?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : By bad, I presume you mean undesirable.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That of course.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Perhaps it was but should we not say that Rome fell
\nbecause barbarism was strong, not because she was feeble?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Rome uncorrupted was able to laugh at similar
\nperils.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then to have Rome safe you would have had her
\nremain barbaric?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Did I say so?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : You implied it. In Rome the triumphal chariot of
\ncorruption was drawn by the winged horses. Culture and Art.
\nAnd it is always so. From the evergreen foliage of the Periclean
\nera there bloomed that gorgeous and over-blown flower, Athens
\nof the philosophers, a corrupt luxurious city, the easy vassal of
\nMacedon, the easier slave of Rome. From the blending of
\nHellenic with Persian culture was derived that Oriental pomp and
\nlavish magnificence which ruined the kingdoms of the East. And
\nRome, their conqueror, she too when the Roman in her died and
\nthe Italian lived, when the city of wolves became the abode of
\nmen, bartered her savage prosperity for a splendid decline. Yes,<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201310<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthe fulness of the flower is the sure prelude of decay.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhen we say a fruit is wholesome or unwholesome we mean
\nthat it is harmless and nutritious food or that it tends to dysentry
\nand colic, but when we say that anything is good or bad, we apply
\nthe epithets like tickets without inquiring what we mean by them; we have no moral touchstone that tells gold from spurious metal.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nLook at the India of Vikramaditya. How gorgeous was her
\nbeauty! how Olympian the voices of her poets! how sensuous
\nthe pencil of her painters! how languidly voluptuous the outlines
\nof her sculpture! In those days every man was marvellous to
\nhimself and many were marvellous to their fellows; but the mightiest marvel of
\nall were the philosophers. What a Philosophy was that! For she scaled the empyrean on the winged
\nsandals of meditation, soared above the wide fires of the sun and
\nabove the whirling stars, up where the flaming walls of the universe are guiltless of wind or cloud and there in the burning core
\nof existence saw the face of the most high God. She saw God and
\ndid not perish; rather fell back to earth, not blasted with excess
\nof light, but with a mystic burden on her murmuring lips too
\nlarge for human speech to utter or for the human brain to understand. Such was she then. Yet five rolling centuries had not
\npassed when sleepless, all-beholding Surya saw the sons of Mahomet pour like locusts over the green fields of her glory and the
\nwrecks of that mighty fabric whirling down the rapids of barbarism into the shores of night. They were barbarous, therefore
\nmighty: we were civilized, therefore feeble.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : But was not your
\ncivilization premature ? The building too hastily raised disintegrates and collapses, for it has the
\nseeds of death in its origin. May not the utilitarian justly condemn it as evil?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : What the utilitarian may not justly do, it is beyond
\nthe limits of my intellect to discover. Had it not been for these
\npremature civilizations, had it not been for the Athens of Plato,
\nthe Rome of the Caesers, the India of Vikramaditya, what would
\nthe world be now? It was premature, because barbarism was
\nyet predominant in the world; and it is wholly due to our premature efflorescence that your utilitarians can mount the high
\nstool of folly and defile the memory of the great. When I remem-<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201311<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nber that, I do not think I can deny that we were premature. I
\ntrust and believe that the civilization of the future will not come
\ntoo late rather than too early. No, the utilitarian with his sordid
\ncreed may exalt the barbarism and spit his livid contempt upon
\nculture, but the great heart of the world will ever beat more
\nresponsive to the flame-winged words of the genius than to the
\nmusty musings of the moralists. It is better to be great and perish,
\nthan to be little and live. But where was I when the wind of tirade
\ncarried me out of my course ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : You were breaching the defences of utilitarian
\nmorality.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Ah, I remember. What I mean is this; the utilitarian arrives at his results by an arbitrary application of the
\nepithets "good<\/i>" and "bad<\/i>". This mistake is of
\nperpetual occurrence in Bentham and gives the basis for the most monstrous and
\nshocking of his theories. For example the servitude of women
\nis justified by the impossibility of marriage without it. Again
\nhe condemns theft by a starving man as a heinous offence because
\nit is likely to disturb security. He quite forgets to convince us, as
\nthe author of a system professedly grounded on logic should have done, that the
\nsurvival of marriage is a desirable effect or property more valuable than life.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I confess that Bentham on those two subjects is far
\ntoo cavalier and offhand to please me, but the utilitarian system
\ncan stand on another basis than Bentham supplies.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Yours is a curious position, Broome. You are one
\nof those who would expunge the part of Hamlet from the play
\nthat bears his name. Your religion is Christianity without Christ,
\nyour morality Benthamism without Bentham. Nevertheless my
\nguns are so pointed that they will breach any wall you choose to
\nset up. For this is common to all utilitarians that they lose sight
\nof a paramount consideration: the epithets "good<\/i>" and "bad<\/i>"
\n<\/i>are purely conventional and have no absolute sense, but their
\nmeaning may be shifted at the will of the speaker. Indeed they
\nhave been the root of so many revolting ideas and of so many
\nand such monstrous social tyrannies, that I should not be sorry
\nto see them expelled from the language, as unfit to be in the
\ncompany of decent words. Why do you smile?<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201312<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nWilson <\/i> : The novelty of the idea amused me.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Yes, I know that "original<\/i>" and
\n"fool<\/i>" are synonymous in the world’s vocabulary.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That was a nasty one for me. <\/b> However I am afraid
\nI shall be compelled to agree with you.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Do you admit that there is only one alternative,
\nfaith without reason or the recognition of morality as a conventional term without any absolute meaning ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I should rather say that morality is the idea of what
\nis just and right in vogue among a given number of people.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : You have exactly described it. Are you content to
\ntake this as your touchstone?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Neither this, nor faith without reason.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Two positions abandoned at a blow ? That is more
\nthan I had the right to expect. Now, as the time is slipping by,
\nlet us set out on the discovery of some law, or should I not rather
\nsay, some indicating tendency by which we may arrive at a
\nprinciple of life ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I am anxious to hear it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Let us furnish ourselves with another glass of claret
\nfor the voyage. You will have some?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Thanks.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : My first difficulty when I set out on a voyage of
\ndiscovery is to select the most probable route. I look at my chart
\nand I see one marked justice along which the trade winds blow;<\/font> 
\n<\/font>but whoever has weighed anchor on this path has arrived like
\nColumbus at another than the intended destination, without
\nmaking half as valuable a discovery. Another route is called
\n"beauty" and along this no one has yet sailed. An Irish navigator
\nhas indeed attempted it and made some remarkable discoveries,
\nbut he has clothed his account in such iridescent wit and humour,
\nthat our good serious English audience either grin foolishly at
\nhim from a vague idea that they ought to feel amused or else
\nshake their heads and grumble that the fellow is corrupting the
\nyouth and ruining their good old Saxon gravity; why he actually
\nmakes people laugh at the beliefs they have been taught by their
\nvenerable and aged grandmothers. But as for believing his
\ntraveller’s tales \u2014 they believe them not a whit. Possibly if we<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201313<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nwho do not possess this dangerous gift of humour, were to follow
\nthe path called beauty, we might hit the target of our desires: if not, we might at least discover things wonderful and new to repay us for our labour. And so on with other possible routes.
\nNow which shall we choose ? For much hangs on our selection.
\nShall we say justice ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Let me know first what justice is.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I do not know, but I think no one would hesitate
\nto describe it as forbearance from interfering with the rights of
\nothers.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is a good description.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Possibly, but so long as we do not know what are
\nthe rights of others, the description, however good, can have no
\nmeaning.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Can we not discover, what are the rights of others ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : We have been trying for the last three thousand
\nyears; with how much or how little success, I do not like to say.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Then let us try another tack.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Can you tell me which one we should choose ? My
\nown idea is that the word "beauty<\/i>" is replete with hopeful possibilities.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Is not that because it is used in a hundred different
\nsenses ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I own that the word, as used today, is like so many
\nothers a relative term. But if we were to fix a permanent and
\nabsolute meaning on it, should we not say that beauty is that
\nwhich fills us with a sense of satisfying pleasure and perfect fitness ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, I think beauty must certainly be judged by its
\neffects.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : But are there not minds so moulded that they are
\ndead to all beauty and find more charm in the showy and vulgar
\nthan in what is genuinely perfect and symmetrical?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : There can be no doubt of that.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then beauty still remains a relative term?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> :<\/b> Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : That is unfortunate. Let us try and find some other
\ntest for it. And in order to arrive at this, should we not take<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201314<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nsomething recognised by all to be beautiful and examine in what
\nits beauty lies?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is distinctly our best course. Let us take the
\ncommonest type of beauty, a rose.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then in what lies the beauty of a rose if not in its
\nsymmetry? Why has the whole effect that satisfying completeness which subjugates the senses, if not because Nature has
\nblended in harmonious proportion the three elements of beauty: <\/font>
\n <\/font>colour, perfume and form? Now beauty may exist separately
\nin any two of these elements and where it does so, the accession
\nof the third would probably mar the perfection of that species
\nof beauty; as in sculpture where form in its separate existence
\nfinds a complete expression and is blended harmoniously with
\nperfume \u2014 for character or emotion is the perfume of the human form, just as sound is the perfume of poetry and music \u2014
\nbut if a sculptor tints his statue, the effect displeases us, because
\nit seems gaudy or tinsel, or in plain words disproportionate.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn some cases beauty seems to have only one of these elements, for example frankincense and music which seem to possess
\nperfume only, but in reality we shall find that they have each one
\nor both of the other elements. For incense would not be half so
\nbeautiful, if we did not see the curling folds of smoke floating
\nlike loose drapery in the air, nor would music be music if not
\nharmoniously blended with form and colour, or as we usually
\ncall them, technique and meaning. Again there are other cases
\nin which beauty undoubtedly has one only of the three elements;<\/font> 
\n<\/font>and such are certain scents like myrrh, eucalyptus and others,
\nwhich possess neither colour nor form, isolated hues such as
\nthe green and purple and violet painted on floor and walls by the
\nafternoon sun and architectural designs which have no beauty
\nbut the isolated beauty of form. The criticism of ages has shown
\na fit appreciation of these harmonies by adjudging the highest
\nscale of beauty to those forms which blend the three elements
\nand the lowest to those which boast only of one. Thus sculpture
\nis a far nobler art than architecture, for while both may compass
\nan equal perfection of form, sculpture alone possesses the larger
\nharmony derived by the union of form and perfume. Similarly
\nthe human form is more divine than sculpture because it has the<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201315<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthird element, colour; and the painting of figures is more beautiful than the portrayal of landscapes, because the latter is destitute of perfume while figures of life have always that character or emotion which we have called the perfume of the living form.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAgain if we take two forms of beauty otherwise exactly on the
\nsame level, we shall find that the more beautiful in which the
\nthree elements are most harmoniously blended. As for instance
\na perfect human form and a perfect poem; whichever we may
\nadmire, we shall find our reason, if we probe for it, to be that the
\nwhole is more perfectly blended and the result a more satisfying
\ncompleteness. If we think of all this, it will assuredly not be too
\nrash to describe beauty by calling the general effect harmony
\nand the ulterior cause proportion. What is your opinion,
\nBroome?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Your idea is certainly remarkable and novel, but
\nthe language you have selected is so intricate that I am in the dark
\nas to whether it admits of invariable application.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : The usual effect of endeavouring to be too explicit
\nis to mystify the hearer. I will try to dive into less abysmal depths.
\nCan you tell me why a curve is considered more beautiful than a
\nstraight line?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : No, except that the effect is more pleasing.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Ah yes, but why should it be more pleasing?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I cannot tell.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I will tell you. It is because a curve possesses that
\nvariety which is the soul of proportion. It rises, swells and falls
\nwith an exact propriety \u2014 it is at once various and regular as
\nrolling water; while the stiff monotony of a straight line disgusts
\nthe soul by its meaningless rigidity and want of proportion. On
\nthe other hand a system of similar curves, unless very delicately
\nmanaged, cannot possibly suggest the idea of beauty: and that is
\nbecause there is no proportion, for proportion, I would impress
\nupon you, consists in a regular variety. And thus a straight line,
\ntho’ in itself ugly, can be very beautiful if properly combined
\nwith curves. Here again the like principle applies.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nDo you now understand?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, I admit that your
\ntheory is wonderfully complete and consistent.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201316<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : If you want a farther illustration, I will give you one.
\nAnd just as before we selected the most commonly received type
\nof beauty, I will now select the most perfect: and that, I think,
\nis a perfect poem. Would you not agree with me?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : No, I should give the palm to a perfectly beautiful
\nface.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I think you are wrong.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Have you any reason for thinking so?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Yes, and to me a very satisfying reason. The three
\nelements of beauty do not blend with absolutely perfect harmony
\nin a human face. Have you not frequently noticed that those
\nfaces which express the most soul, the most genius, the most
\ncharacter, are not perfectly harmonious in their form?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, the exceptions are rare.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And the reason is that to emphasize the character
\nthe divine artist has found himself compelled to emphasize certain of the features above the others, for instance, the lips, the
\neyes, the forehead, the chin, and to give them an undue prominence which destroys that proportion without which there can
\nbe no perfect harmony. Do you perceive my meaning?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, and I do not think your conclusions can be
\ndisputed.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : In a perfectly beautiful face the emotion has to be
\nmodified and discouraged, so as not to disturb the harmony of
\nform: but in a perfectly beautiful poem the maker has indeed to
\nblend with exquisite nicety the three elements of beauty, but
\nthough the colour may be gorgeous, the emotion piercingly vivid,
\nthe form deliriously lovely, yet each of these has so just a share
\nof the effect, that we should find it difficult to add to or to detract
\nfrom any of them without fatally injuring the perfection of the
\nwhole.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd so it is with every form of beauty that is not originally
\nimperfect; to detract or add would be alike fatal; for alteration
\nmeans abolition. Each syllable is a key-stone and being removed,
\nthe whole imposing structure crumbles in a moment to the
\nground. Can we better describe this perfect blending of parts
\nthan by the word proportion ? or is its entire effect anything but
\nharmony ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201317<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nWilson <\/i> : There are indeed no better words.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And this harmony runs through the warp and woof
\nof Nature. Look at the stars, the brain of heaven as Meredith
\ncalls them. How they march tossing on high their golden censers
\nto perfume night with the frankincense of beauty! They are a
\nhost of winged insects crawling on the blue papyrus of heaven, a
\nswarm of golden gnats, a cloud of burning dust, a wonderful
\neffect of sparkling atoms caught and perpetuated by the instantaneous pencil of Nature. And yet they are none of all these,
\nbut a vast and interdependent economy of worlds. Those burning globes as they roll in silent orbits through the infinite inane,
\nare separated by an eternity of space. They are individual and
\nalone, but from each to each thrill influences unfathomed and
\nunconscious, marvellous magnetisms, curious repulsions that
\ncheck like adverse gales or propel like wind in bellying canvas,
\nand bind these solitary splendours into one supernal harmony
\nof worlds. The solar harmony we know. How gloriously perfect
\nit is, how united in isolation, how individual in unity! How star
\nanswers to star and the seven wandering dynasts of destiny as
\nthey roll millions of leagues apart, drag with them the invisible
\nmagnetic cord which binds them for ever to the Sun! We believe
\nthat those lights we call fixed are each a sun with a rhythmic harmony of planets dancing in immeasurable gyrations around one
\nimmovable, immortal star. More, is it extravagant to guess that
\nwhat to us is fixed, is a planet to God ? Perhaps to the inhabitants of the moon
\nthis tumbling earth of ours is a fixed and constant light, and perhaps the glorious ball of fire we worship as the
\nLord of Light, is the satrap of some majesty more luminous and
\nmore large. Thus we may conceive of the universe as a series of
\nsubordinate harmonies, each perfect in itself and helping to consummate the harmony which is one and universal.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWell may the poet give the stars that majestic synonym<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n     The army of unalterable law.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nBut the law that governs the perishable flower, the ephemeral
\nmoth, is not more changeful than the law that disciplines the
\nmovements of the eternal fires. The rose burns in her season;<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201318<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthe moth lives in his hour: not even the wind bloweth where it
\nlisteth unless it preserve the boundaries prescribed by Nature.
\nEach is a separate syllable in the grand poem of the universe:<\/font>
\n<\/font>it is all so inalterable because it is so perfect. Yes, Tennyson was
\nright, tho’ like most poets, he knew not what he said, when he
\nwrote those lines on the flower in the crannies: if we know what
\nthe flower is, we know also what God is and what man.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I begin to catch a glimpse of your drift. But is there
\nno discordant element in this universal harmony?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : There is. As soon as we come to life, we find that
\nGod’s imagination is no longer unerring; we almost think that
\nhe has reached a conception which it is beyond his power to
\nexecute. It is true that there are grand and beautiful lines in the
\nvast epic of life, but others there are so unmusical and discordant
\nthat we can scarcely believe but that Chance was the author of
\nexistence. The beautiful lines are no doubt wonderful; among
\nthe insects the peacock-winged butterfly, the light spendthrift
\nof unclouded 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 birds
\n\u2014 the tawny eagle shouting his clangorous aspiration against the sun, the cruel
\nshrike, his talons painted in murder; the murmuring dove, robed in the pure and delicate hue of constancy; the
\ninspired skylark with his matin-song descending like a rain of
\nfire from the blushing bosom of the dawn. Nay the beasts too
\nare not without their fine individualities: the fire-eyed lion, the
\ncreeping panther, the shy fawn, the majestic elephant; each fill
\na line of the great poem and by contrast enhance harmony. But
\nwhat shall we say of the imaginations that inspire nothing but
\ndisgust, the grub, the jackal, the vulture? And when we come to
\nman, we are half inclined to throw up our theory in despair.
\nFor we only see a hideous dissonance, a creaking melody, a ghastly failure. We see the philosopher wearing a crown of thorns and
\nthe fool robed in purple and fine linen; the artist drudging at a
\ndesk and the average driving his quill thro’ reams of innocent
\npaper; we see genius thrust aside into the hedges and stupidity
\ndriving her triumphal chariot on the beaten paths of social
\nexistence. Once we might have said that Nature like a novice in<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201319<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nart was rising through failures and imperfections into an artistic
\nconsummation and that when Evolution had exhausted her energies, her eyes would gaze on a perfect universe. But when we
\ncome to the human being, her most ambitious essay, the cynicism of frustrated hope steals slowly over us. I am reminded of
\nsome lines in a sonnet more remarkable for power than for
\nfelicitous expression.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nShe crowned her wild work with one foulest wrong<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nAnd darkly blundered on man’s suffering soul.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nIt is as if nature in admitting action into her universe were in the
\nposition of a poet who trusted blindly to inspiration without subjecting his work to the instincts of art or the admonitions of the
\ncritical faculty; but once dissatisfied with his work begins to pass
\nhis pen repeatedly thro’ his after performances, until he seems
\nat last to 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
\nof her gift he has stultified the beauty of her splendid imaginations.<\/font><\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

\nI saw him in the shining of his stars,<\/font><\/p>\n

\nI marked him in the flowering of his fields,<\/font><\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

\nHow true in every syllable! God burns in the star, God blossoms
\nin the rose, the cloud is the rushing dust of his chariot, the
\nsea is the spuming mirror of his moods. His breath whistles in the
\nwind, his passion reddens in the sunset, his anguish drops in the
\nrain. The darkness is the soft fall of his eyelashes over the purple
\nmagnificence of his eyes: the sanguine dawn is his flushed and<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201320<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nhappy face as he leaves the flowery pillow of sleep; the moonlight is nothing but the slumberous glint of his burning tresses
\nwhen thro’ them glimmer the heaving breasts of Eternity. What
\nto him are the petty imaginings of human aspiration; our puny
\nfrets, our pitiable furies, our melodramatic passions? If he
\ndeigns to think of us, it is as incompetent actors who have wholly
\nmisunderstood the bent of our powers. The comedian rants in
\nthe vein of Bombastes; the tragic artist plays the buffoon in the
\npauses of a pantomime, and the genius that might have limned
\nthe passion of a Romeo, moulds the lumpish ineptitude of a
\nCloten. God lifting his happy curls from the white bosom of
\nBeauty, shoots the lightning of his glance upon our antics and we
\nhear his mockery hooting at us in the thunder. Why should he squander a serious
\nthought on a farce so absurd and extravagant ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : And are these the ultimate syllables of Philosophy ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : You are impatient, Broome. What I have arrived
\nat is the discovery that human life is, if not the only, at any rate
\nthe principal note in Nature that jars with the grand idea underlying her harmony. <\/b> Do you agree with me?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: <\/b> He would be a hopeless optimist who did not.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And are you of the opinion that it is the exercise by
\nman of his will-power to which we owe the discord ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : No, I would throw the blame on Nature.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : After the example of Adam? "The woman tempted
\nme and I did eat." I too am a son of Adam and would throw the
\nblame on Nature. But once her fault is admitted, has not the
\nhuman will been manifestly her accomplice?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/b><\/i> : <\/b>Her instrument rather.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Very well, her instrument. You admit that?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then if the human will, prompted by Nature or her
\nservant, False Reason, has marred the universal harmony, may
\nnot the human will prompted by Right Reason who is also the
\nservant of Nature, mend the harmony he has marred ? Or if that
\npuzzles you, let me put the question in another form. Does not
\na wilful choice of sensuality imply an alternative of purity?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : It does.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201321<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And a wilful choice of unbelief an alternative of
\nbelief?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/b><\/i> : <\/b>Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then on the same principle, if the human will chose
\nto mar the harmony of nature, was it not within its power to
\nchoose the opposite course and fulfil the harmony?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson<\/i> : Certainly that follows.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And through ignorance and the promptings of
\nFalse Reason we preferred to spoil rather than to fulfil?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>
\n:  <\/i>
\nYes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>
\n: <\/i>
\nAnd we can mend what we mar?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>
\n:  <\/i>
\nSometimes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: <\/i>Well then, can we not choose to mend the harmony<\/font>
\n<\/font>we originally chose to mar?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>:  <\/i>I do not think it probable.<\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: <\/i>An admission that it is possible is all that I want  to elicit from you.<\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>:  <\/i>I do not know that.<\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>:  <\/i>Have not some episodes of the great epic rung more in unison with the grand harmony than others?<\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: <\/i>Yes; the old-world Greeks were more in tune with the universe than we.<\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : The name of the episode does not signify. You
\nadmit a race or an epoch which has fallen into the harmony
\nmore than others?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Freely.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then as you admit the more and the less, will you
\nnot admit that the more may become in its own turn the less \u2014
\nthat there may be the yet more ? May we not attain to a more
\nperfect harmony with the universe than those who have been
\nmost in harmony with it?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : It is possible.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : If it is possible, should we not go on and inquire
\nhow it is possible?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is the next step.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And when we have found an
\nanswer to our inquiries, shall we not have solved this difficult question of a new basis for morality?<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201322<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, we shall: for I see now that to be in harmony
\nwith beauty, or, in other words, to take the guiding principle
\nof the universe as the guiding principle of human life, is the
\nfinal and perfect aim of the human species.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Broome, you have the scent of a sleuth-hound.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I am afraid that it is ironical. You must remember
\nthat we are not all philosophers yet. Still I should have liked to
\nsee how the idea came out in practice.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: If you can spare me another night or it may be two,
\nwe will pursue the idea through its evolutions. I am deeply
\ninterested, for to me as to you it is perfectly novel.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Shall you be free on Thursday night?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : As free as the wind.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Then I will come. Goodnight.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Goodnight, and God reward you for giving me
\nyour company.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nEND OF THE
\n<\/span>FIRST <\/span>BOOK<\/span><\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u201323<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

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

\n <\/p>\n

\nKeshav Ganesh <\/i>[Desai<\/i>] \u2014
\nTrevor \u2014 Broome Wilson<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Ah, Broome, so the magnetism of thought has
\nbroken the chains of duty ? May I introduce you ? Mr. Trevor
\nof Kings, Mr. Broome Wilson of Jesus. Would you like wine
\nor coffee?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Perhaps for an evening of metaphysics wine is the
\nmost appropriate prelude.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : You agree then with the Scythians who made a
\npoint of deliberating when drunk? They were perhaps right;<\/font> 
\none is inclined to think that most men are wiser drunk than
\nsober. I have been endeavouring to explain my line of argument
\nto Trevor, I am afraid with indifferent success.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Can I do anything to help you?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I have no doubt you can. Would you mind stating
\nyour difficulty, Trevor? I think you allowed that every other
\nbasis of morality is unsound but uphold the utilitarian model
\nas perfectly logical and consistent.<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nKeshav <\/i> : You do not admit that the epithets "good" and
\n"bad" have a purely conventional force.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : Yes, I admit that, but I add that we have fixed a
\ndefinite meaning on the epithets and adhered to it all through
\nour system.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : If so, you are fortunate. Can you tell me the definite meaning to which you refer?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : The basis of our system is
\nthis, that whatever is profitable, is good, whatever is the reverse, is evil. <\/b> Is not that an
\nunassailable basis?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I do not think so; for two ambiguous words you
\nhave merely substituted two others only less ambiguous.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : I fail to see your reasoning.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I will endeavour to show you what I mean. You<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 24<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nwill admit that one man’s meat is another man’s poison, will
\nyou not?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : Yes, and that is where our system works so beautifully; for we bring in our arithmetical solution of balancing
\nthe good and the evil of an action and if the scale of the evil
\nrises, we stamp it as good, if the scale of the good rises, we
\nbrand it as evil. What do you say to that?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Dear me! that does indeed sound simple and satisfying. I am afraid, Broome, we shall have to throw up our theory
\nin favour of Bentham’s. Your system is really so attractive and
\ntransparent, Trevor, that I should dearly like to learn more
\nabout it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : Now you are indulging in irony, Desai; you know
\nBentham as well as I do.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : 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 arguments seldom seemed to me to have any force,
\nwhile you on the other hand do really strike home to the judgement. And therefore I should like to see whether you are entirely
\nat one with Bentham. For example I believe you prefer the good
\nof the community to the good of the individual, do you not ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : Not at all: it is the individuals who are the community.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : <\/b> It is gratifying to learn that: but if the interests of a
\nfew individuals conflict with the interests of the general body, you
\nprefer the interests of the general body, do you not?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : As a matter of course.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And, as a general rule, if you have to deal with a
\nnumber of persons, and the good of some is not reconcilable with
\nthe good of others, you prefer the good of the greater number!<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : That again is obvious.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : So you accept the dogma "the greatest good of the
\ngreatest number"; for if one interest of a given person or number
\nof persons conflict with another interest, you prefer the greater ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : Without hesitation.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And so the Athenians were right when they put
\nSocrates to death.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : What makes you advance so absurd a paradox?<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 25<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Why, by your arithmetical system of balancing the
\ngood and the evil. The injury to Socrates is not to be put in comparison with the profit to the State, for we prefer the good of the
\ngreater number, and the pleasure experienced by the youths he
\ncorrupted in his discourse and the enjoyment of their corruption
\nis not to be so much considered as the pain they would experience
\nfrom the effects of their corruption and the pain inflicted on the
\nState by the rising generation growing up corrupt and dissolute,
\nfor among conflicting interests we prefer the greatest.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : But Socrates did not corrupt the youth of Athens.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : The Athenians thought he was corrupting their
\nyouth and they were bound to act on their opinion.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : They were not bound to act on their opinion, but
\non the facts.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : What is this you are telling me, Trevor? We are
\nthen only to act when we have a correct opinion, and, seeing that
\na definitely correct opinion can only be formed by posterity
\nafter we are dead, we are not to use your arithmetical balance
\nor at least can only use it when we are dead? Then I do not
\nsee much utility in your arithmetical balance.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : Now I come to think of it, the Athenians were right
\nin putting Socrates to death.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And the Jews in crucifying Christ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I admire your fortitude, my dear Trevor. And if
\nthe English people had thought Bentham was corrupting their
\nyouth, they would have been right in hanging Bentham, would
\nthey not?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : What a fellow you are, Desai! of course what I
\nmean is that the Athenians and the Jews did not listen to their
\nhonest opinion but purely the voice of malice.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then if these wicked people who put wise men to
\ndeath not in honest folly but from malice, were to have said to
\nyou: "Come now, you who accuse us of pure malice, are you
\nnot actuated by pure benevolence ? If our approval is founded
\non sentiment, your disapproval is founded on the same flimsy
\nbasis, and you have no reasonable objection to the poisoning of
\nSocrates or the crucifixion of Christ or the hanging of Bentham,<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 26<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nas the case may be", and if you were to tell them that your arithmetical balance said it was not profitable, would they not be
\njustified in asking whether your arithemetical balance was infallible and whether you had a satisfactory principle which guided
\nyour calculations.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : Yes, and I should tell them that I value as profitable
\nwhat conduces to happiness and as unprofitable what detracts
\nfrom or does not add to happiness.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I am afraid that would not satisfy them, for the
\nnature of happiness is just as disputable as the nature of profit.
\nYou do not think so ? Well, for example, do not some think that
\nhappiness lies in material comfort, while others look for it in the
\nprovince of the intellect ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : These distinctions are mere nonsense; both are alike
\nessential.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Indeed we have reason to thank heaven that there
\nare still some of the sages left who are sufficiently impartial to
\ncondemn every opinion but their own. Yet under correction, I
\nshould like to venture on a question; if the good that conduces to
\nmaterial comfort is not reconcilable with the good that conduces
\nto intellectual pleasure, how do you manage your arithmetical
\nbalance?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : Material comfort before all things! that is a necessity, intellect a luxury.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : You are a consistent change-artist, Trevor; yet may
\nthere not be diverse opinions on the point.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : I do not see how it is possible. The human race may
\nbe happy without intellectual pleasure, but never without material comfort.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Have you any historical data to bear out your
\ngeneralisation?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : I cannot say I have, but I appeal to common sense.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Oh, if you appeal to Caesar, I am lost; but be sure
\nthat if you bring your case before the tribunal of common sense,
\nI will appeal not to common, but to uncommon sense \u2014 and that
\nwill arbitrate in my favour.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : Well, we must agree to differ.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : At any rate we have arrived at this, that you assign<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 27<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nmaterial comfort as the most important element in happiness,
\nwhile I assign the free play of the intellect.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : So it seems.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And you maintain that I am wrong because I disagree with you?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : No, because you disagree with reason.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : That is, with reason as you see it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : If you like.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And you think I am unique in my opinion?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : No indeed! there are too many who agree with you.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Now we have gone a step farther. Apparently the
\nnature of happiness is a matter of opinion.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : Oh, of course, if you like to say so.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And happiness is the basis of morality. You agree ?
\nvery well, the nature of the basis is a matter of opinion, and it
\nseems to follow that morality itself is a matter of opinion. And
\nso we have come to this, that after rejecting as a basis of morality
\nour individual sense of what is just and right, we have accepted
\nour individual sense of what conduces to happiness. Therefore it
\nis moral for you to refrain from stealing and for me to steal.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : That is a comfortable conclusion at any rate.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Yet I think it is borne out by our premises. Do you
\nnot imagine the security of property to be essential to happiness
\nand anything that disturbs it immoral?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : That goes without saying and I admit that it is immoral for me to steal.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Now I on the other hand am indeed of the opinion
\nthat material comfort is essential to happiness, for without it the
\nintellect cannot have free play, but believing as I do that the system of private property conduces to the comfort of the few, but
\nits abolition will conduce to the comfort of the many, I, on the
\nprinciple you have accepted, the greatest good of the greatest
\nnumber, am opposed to the system of private property. And I
\nbelieve that the prevalence of crimes against property will accelerate the day of abolition; I recognise indeed that the immediate effects will be evil, but put a greater value on the ultimate
\ngood than on the immediate evil. It follows that, if my reasoning
\nbe correct, and we agreed that individual judgement must be<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 28<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n

the arbiter, it is perfectly moral for me to steal.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : 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, I would stop and refute you.
\nAs it is, I will leave you to pour your absurdities into more congenial ears.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : You are not going, Trevor.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTrevor <\/i> : I am afraid I must. Goodnight.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Goodnight.<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nWilson <\/i> : No, I was excellently amused. But do your arguments with him usually terminate in this abrupt fashion?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Very often they do so terminate. Trevor is a good
\nfellow \u2014 a fine intellect spoiled but he cannot bear adversity with
\nan equal mind. Now let us resume our inquiry.<\/font><\/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
\nof morality is that which really tends to restore the harmony of the universe,
\nand we agreed that if we apply the principles governing the universe to human life, we shall discover the highest
\nprinciple of conduct. That was the point where we broke off, was
\nit not?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, we broke off just there.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : So we profess to have found a sense in which the
\ntheory advanced by philosophers of every age has become true,
\nthat life ought to be lived in accordance with nature and not in
\naccordance with convention. The error we impute to them was
\nthat they failed to keep nature distinct from human nature and
\nforgot that the latter was complicated by the presence of that
\nfallible reason of which conventions are the natural children.
\nThus men of genius like Rousseau reverted to the savage for a
\nmodel and gave weight to the paradox that civilization is a mistake. Let us not forget that it is useless to look for unalloyed
\nnature in the savage, so long as we cannot trace human development from its origin: to the original man the savage would seem
\nnothing but a mass of conventions. We have nothing to learn<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 29<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nfrom savages; but there is a vast deal to be learned from the errors
\nof civilized peoples. Civilization is a failure, not a mistake.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is a subtle distinction.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : 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
\nwrong turn and fallen into the waters of convention. There lies
\nthe failure. When man at the very first step of his history used his
\nreason to confound the all-pervading Cosmos or harmonious
\narrangement of Nature, conventions became necessary in order
\nto allure him into less faulty modes of reasoning, by which alone
\nhe could rectify his error. But after the torrent had rolled for a
\ntime along its natural course and two broad rivers of Thought,
\nthe Greek and the Hindu, were losing themselves in the grand
\nharmony, there was a gradual but perceptible swerve, and the
\nforces of convention which had guided, began to misguide, and
\nthe Sophists in Greece, in India the Brahmans availed themselves
\nof these mighty forces to compass their own supremacy, and once
\nat the helm of thought gave permanence to the power by which
\nthey stood, until two religions, the most hostile to Nature, in the
\nEast Buddhism, her step-child Christianity in the West, completed the evil their predecessors had begun.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHear the legend of Purush, the son of
\nPrithivi, and his journey
\nto the land of Beulah, the land of blooming gardens and yellow-vested acres and wavering tree-tops, and two roads lead to it.
\nOne road is very simple, very brief, very direct, and this leads
\nover the smiling summit of a double-headed peak, but the other
\nthrough the gaping abysses of a lion-throated antre and it is very
\nlong, very painful, very circuitous. Now the wise and beautiful
\ninstructress of Purush had indeed warned him that all other wayfarers had chosen the ascent of the beautiful hill, but had not
\nexplicitly forbidden him to select the untried and perilous route.
\nAnd the man was indolent and thought it more facile to journey
\nsmoothly through a tunnel than to breast with arduous effort the
\ntardy and panting slope, yet plumed himself on a nobler nature
\nthan all who had gone before him because they had obeyed their
\nmonitress, but he was guided by his reason and honourably
\npreferred the unknown and perilous to the safe and familiar.
\nFrom this tangle of motives he chose the enormous lion-throat of<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 30<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthe gaping antre, not the swelling breasts of the fruitful mother.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nVery gaily he entered the cave singing wild ballads of the
\ndeeds his fathers wrought, of Krishna and Arjun and Ram and
\nRavan and their glory and their fall, but not so merrily did he
\njourney in its entrails, but rather in hunger and thirst groped
\nwearily with the unsleeping beak of the vulture Misery in his
\nheart, and only now and then caught glimpses of an elusive light, yet did not
\nrealise his error but pursued with querulous reproaches the beautiful gods his happy imagination had moulded
\nor bitterly reviled the double-dealing he imputed to his lovely
\nand wise instructress \u2014 "for she it was," he complained, "who
\ntold me of the route through the cavern." None the less he persevered until he was warmed by the genuine smiles of daylight
\nand joy blossoming in his heart, made his step firmer and his
\nbody more erect.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd he strode on until he arrived where the antre split in two
\nbranches, the one seeming dark as Erebus to his eyes, though
\nindeed it was white and glorious as a naked girl and suffused by
\nthe light of the upper heaven with seas of billowing splendour,
\nhad not his eyes, grown dim from holding communion with the
\nnight and blinded by the unaccustomed brilliance, believed that
\nthe light was darkness, through which if he had persevered, he
\nhad arrived in brief space among the blooming gardens and the
\nwavering tree-tops and the acres in their glorious golden garb
\nand all the imperishable beauty of Beulah. And the other branch
\nhe thought the avenue of the sunlight, because the glimmer was
\nfeeble enough to be visible, like a white arm through a sleeve
\nof black lace. And down this branch he went, for ever
\nallured by unreal glimpses of a dawning glory, until he
\nhas descended into the abysmal darkness and the throne
\nof ancient night, where he walks blindly like a machine,
\ncarrying the white ashes of hope in the funeral urn of
\nyouth, and knows not whence to expect a rescue, seeing the
\nonly heaven above him is the terrible pillared roof, the
\nonly horizon around him the antre with its hateful unending
\ncolumns and demogorgon veil of visible darkness, and the
\nbeautiful gods he imagined are dead and his heart is no longer
\nsweetened with prayers, and his throat no longer bubbles with<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 31<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nhymns of praise. His beautiful gods are dead and her who was
\nhis lovely guide and wise monitress, he no longer sees as the
\nsweet and smiling friend of his boyhood, but as a fury slinging
\nflame and a blind Cyclopes hurling stones she knows not whither
\nnor why and a ghastly skeleton only the more horrible for its
\nhideous mimicry of life. He sends a wailing cry to heaven, but
\nonly jeering echoes fall from the impenetrable ceiling, for there is
\nno heaven, and he sends a hoarse shriek for aid to hell, but only
\na gurgling horror rises from the impenetrable floor, for there is
\nno hell, and he looks around for God, but his eyes cannot find
\nhim, and he gropes for God in the darkness, but his fingers cannot find him but only the clammy fingers of night, and goblin
\nfancies are rioting in his brain, and hateful shapes pursue him
\nwith clutching fingers, and horrible figures go rustling past him half discerned
\nin the familiar gloom. He is weary of the dreadful vaulted ceiling, he is weary of the dreadful endless floor. And
\nwhat shall he do but lie down and die, who if he goes on, will
\nsoon perish of weariness and famine and thirst ? Yet did he but
\nknow it, he has only to turn back at a certain angle and he will see
\nthrough a chink of the cavern a crocus moon with a triple zone
\nof burning stars, which if he will follow, after not so very painful
\na journey, not so very long an elapse of hours, he will come into
\na land of perennial fountains, where he may quench his thirst,
\nand glistening fruit-groves where he may fill his hunger, and sweet
\ncool grass where he may solace his weariness, and so pursue
\nhis journey by the nearest way to the wavering tree-tops, and the
\nblooming gardens and the acres in their yellow gaberdines for
\nwhich his soul has long panted.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is a fine apologue, Keshav; it is your own,
\nmay I ask?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : It is an allegory conceived by Vallabh Swami, the
\nIndian Epicurus, and revealed to me by him in a vision.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : There we see the false economy of Nature; only
\nthey are privileged to see these beautiful visions, who can<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 32<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nwithout any prompting conceive images not a whit less beautiful.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : The germ of the story was really a dream, but the
\nform and application are my own. The myth means, as I dare
\nsay you have found out, that our present servitude to conventions
\nwhich are the machinery of thought and action, is principally
\ndue to weaknesses forming a large element in human nature. 
\nOur lives ought not to be lived in accordance with human nature
\nwhich can nowhere be found apart from the disturbing element
\nof reason, but according to nature at large where we find the
\nprinciple of harmony pure and undefiled.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : On that we are both at one; let us start directly from
\nthis base of operations. I am impatient to follow the crocus
\nmoon with her triple zone of burning stars into the Eden of
\nmurmuring brooks and golden groves and fields of asphodel.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : The basis of morality is then the application to human life of the principles governing the universe; and the great
\nprinciple of the universe is beauty, is it not?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : So we have discovered.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And we described beauty as harmony in effect
\nand proportion in detail.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That was our description.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then the aim of morality must be to make human
\nlife harmonious. Now the other types in the universe are harmonious not merely in relation to their internal parts, but in relation
\nto each other and the sum of the universe, are they not?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : We mean, I suppose, that the star fills its place in
\nthe Cosmos and the rose fills her place, but man does not fill
\nhis.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is what we mean.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then the human race must not only be harmonious
\nwithin itself, but it must be harmonious in relation to the star
\nand the rose and so fill its place as to perfect the harmony of the
\nuniverse.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Are we not repeating ourselves?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : No, but we are in danger of it. I am aiming at a
\nclear and accurate wording of my position and that is not easy
\nto acquire at a moment’s notice. I think our best way would be<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 33<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nto consider the harmony of man with the universe, and leave
\nthe internal harmony of the race for subsequent inquiry.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Perhaps it would be best.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : When we say that man should fill his place in the
\nCosmos, we mean that he should be in proportion with its other
\nelements, just as the thorn is in proportion to the leaf and the
\nleaf to the rose, for proportion is the ulterior cause of harmony.
\nAnd we described proportion as a regular variety, or to use a
\nmore vivid phrase, a method in madness. If this is so, it is incumbent on man to be various in his development from the star,
\nthe rose and the other elements of the Cosmos, in a word to be
\noriginal.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That follows.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : But is it enough to be merely original ? For instance
\nif he were to hoist himself into the air by some mechanical contrivance and turn somersaults unto all eternity, that would be
\noriginal but he would not be helping much towards universal
\nharmony, would he?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Well, <\/b>not altogether.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then if we want to describe the abstract idea of virtue, we want something more than originality. I think we said
\nthat proportion is not merely variety, but regular variety?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, that is obvious.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then man must be not merely original but regular in his originality.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I cannot exactly see what you mean.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I cannot at all see what I mean; yet, unless our
\nwhole theory is unsound, and that I am loth to believe, I must
\nmean something. Let us try the plan we have already adopted
\nwith such success, when we discovered the nature 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
\nbe useful for the purpose, for a beautifully written sentence has
\nmany letters just as the universe has many types and it seems that
\nproportion is just as necessary to it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, calligraphy will do very well.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I recollect that we supposed beauty to have three
\nelements, of which every type must possess at least one, better<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 34<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ntwo, and as a counsel of perfection all three. If we inquire, we
\nshall find that form is absolutely imperative, seeing that if the
\nform of the letters is not beautiful or the arrangement of the lines
\nnot harmonious, then the sentence is not beautifully written.
\nColour too may be an element of calligraphy, for we all know
\nwhat different effects we can produce by using inks of various
\ncolours. And if the art is to be perfect, I think that perfume will
\nhave to enter very largely into it. Let us write the word "beautiful". Here you see the letters are beautifully formed, their
\narrangement is beautiful, this bright green ink I am using harmonizes well with the word, and moreover, the sight of this peculiar
\ncombination of letters written in this peculiar way brings to my
\nmind a peculiar association of ideas, which I call the perfume of
\nthe written word.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : But is it not the combination, not of letters but of
\nsounds, which lingers in your mind and calls up the idea?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I 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,
\nbecome harsh and unmusical; and sometimes the reverse happens, especially in Meredith, in whom I have often at first sight
\ncondemned a sentence as harsh and ugly, which, when I read it
\naloud, I was surprised to find apt and harmonious. From this
\nI infer that if a writer’s works appear beautiful in print or manuscript, but not beautiful when read aloud, he may be set down
\nas a good artist in calligraphy, but a bad artist in literature, since
\nsuggestion to the eye is the perfume of the written, but suggestion
\nto the ear the perfume of the spoken word. In this however I
\nseem to have been digressing to no purpose; for whatever else
\nis uncertain, this much is certain, that form is essential to calligraphy, and this is really all that concerns us. Now if the form
\nis to be beautiful it must be harmonious in effect, and to be harmonious in effect it must be proportionate in detail, and to be
\nproportionate in detail, the words and letters of which it is made
\nmust exhibit a regular variety. We can easily see that the letters
\nand words in a sentence are various, but how can they be said
\nto be regular in their variety?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I do not know at present, but I can see that the
\nvariety is regular.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : This we must find out without delay. Let us take
\nthe alphabet and see if the secret is patent there.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is indeed looking for Truth at the bottom of a
\nwell.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Do you not see at a glance that the letters in the
\nLatin alphabet are regular in this sense, that the dominant line
\nis the curve and there is no written letter without it, for the
\nstraight lines are only used to prevent the monotony generated
\nby an unrelieved system of curves ? In the Bengali alphabet again,
\nwhich is more elaborate, but less perfect than the Latin, there is
\na dominant combination of one or more straight lines with one
\nor more curves and to obviate monotony letters purely composed of straight lines are set off by others purely composed of
\ncurves. In the Burmese and other dialects, I believe but from
\nhearsay only, no line but the curve is admitted and I am told that
\nthe effect is undeniably pretty but a trifle monotonous. Here
\nthen we have a clue. If we consider, as we have previously considered, every type in the universe to be a word, then, if the sentence is to be beautifully written each word must not only be
\nvarious from its near companion but must allow one dominant
\nprinciple to determine the lines on which it must vary; and to
\navoid monotony there must be straight lines in the letters, that is
\nto say, each type must have individual types within it, departing
\nfrom the general type by acknowledging another dominant
\nprinciple. I am afraid this is rather intricate. Would you like it
\nto be made clearer?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : No, I perfectly understand; but I should like to
\nguard myself against being misled by the analogy between a beautifully written sentence and the beautifully arranged universe.
\nIf this rule does not apply to every other form of beauty, we may
\nnot justly compare the universe to one in which it does happen
\nto apply.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I hope you will only require me to adduce example
\nof perfect beauty, for the aim of morality is to arrange a perfect,
\nnot an imperfect harmony.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Oh certainly, that is all I am entitled to require.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then you will admit that the stars are various, yet
\nbuilt on a dominant principle?<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Without doubt.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And in making the flowers so various, the divine
\nartist did not fail to remember a dominant principle which
\nprevails in the structure and character of his episode in flowers.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : But this is merely to take an unfair advantage of the
\nmethod of species so largely indulged in by Nature.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Well, if you prefer particulars to generals, we will
\ninquire into the beauty of a Greek design, for the Greeks were
\nthe only painters who understood the value of design; and we
\nwill as usual take an example of perfect beauty. Do you know the
\nNereid and Sea-Horse.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Very intimately.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then, if you have not forgotten how in that incomparable work of art to every mass there is another and answering
\nmass and to the limbs floating forward limbs floating backwards
\nand to every wisp of drapery an answering wisp of drapery,
\nand in short how the whole design is built on the satisfying principle of balancing like by like, you will admit that here is a dominant idea regulating variety. And the principle of balancing like
\nwith like is not peculiar to Greek designing but prevalent in the
\ndesigns of Nature, for example the human face, where eye
\nanswers to luminous eye and both are luminous with one and the
\nsame brilliance, nor is one hazel while the other is azure, and the
\nporches of hearing are two but similar in their curious workmanship, and the sweep of the brow to one ear does not vary from the
\nsweep of the brow to the other and the divergence of the chin
\ndescribes a similar curve on either face of the design, nor is one
\ncheek pallid with the touch of fear while the other blushes with
\nthe flag of joy and health, but in everything the artist has remembered the principle of balancing like with like, both here and in
\nthe emerald leaf and swaying apple which if you tear along the
\nfibrous spine or slice through the centre of the core, will leave
\nin your hands two portions, diverse in entity but alike in material
\nand workmanship. And yet the impertinent criticism of the
\nmoderns claims for themselves a keener appreciation of Nature,
\nthan those great pupils who learned her lessons so gloriously well.
\nIf you would like further examples of the dominant principle
\nregulating variety in a design, you need only look at a blowing<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nrose, a wind-inspired frigate, an evergreen poem, and you will
\nnot be disappointed. With all this in your mind, you will surely
\nadmit that even if we compare the universe to a system of designs
\nwe shall not arrive at other results than when we compared it to
\nGod’s episode in flowers and his marshalled pomp of stars and a
\nsentence beautifully written.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yet I should like to ask one more question.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : My dear Broome, you are at liberty to ask a thousand, for I am always ready to answer.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : A single answer will satisfy me. Why do you
\ncompare the universe to a system of designs and not to a single
\ndesign ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : The universe itself is a system of designs, first the
\nharmony of worlds and within it the lands and seas and on that
\nthe life of flowers and trees and the life of birds and beasts and
\nfishes and the life of human beings. Imagine the Greeks in search
\nof a dominant idea to regulate the variety of their designs and
\nhitting on the human figure as their model; would they not have
\nbeen foolish, if they had gone away from their study of the human figure and drawn a system balancing like design by like
\ndesign!<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I suppose they would.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Nor should we be less foolish to draw up an ideal
\nuniverse or a system of designs on the principle of a single design.
\nAre you satisfied?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Perfectly.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And our conclusion is that we ought to regulate the
\nvariety of the types in the universe, not by balancing like with
\nlike, but by determining the lines of variance on one dominant
\nprinciple.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is the indisputable conclusion.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And 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 arduous which was lying in wait for us behind. 
\nWe have discovered the presence of a dominant idea in the variety
\nof types, but we do not know what the idea may be.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is what we have to find.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : But if we find that all diverging types observe a<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nsingle requisite in divergence, shall we not infer that we have
\nfound the idea of which we are inquisitive?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Obviously.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And we shall find it most easily by comparing one
\ntype with another, shall we not?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is our first idea.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : But if we compare a rose to a star, we shall not find
\nthem agree in any respect except the brilliance of their hues and
\nthat is not likely to be the dominant idea.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : They are both beautiful.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Exactly; but we wish to learn the elements of their
\nbeauty, and we agreed that these were variety, to begin with, and
\nmethod in variety. Now we are inquiring what the method is
\nthey observe in their variety. We know that they are both beautiful; but we wish to know why they are both beautiful.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : And how are you going to do it?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Well, 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,
\nhowever widely they differ, there is a large residuum of properties,
\nsuch as brilliance and light, which are invariably present in one
\nand the other, and they diverge not in the possession and absence
\nof properties peculiar to a star, but in things accidental, in their
\nsize and the exactness of their shape and the measure of their
\nbrilliance and the character of the orbits they are describing.
\nAnd if we compare flower with flower, we shall find a residuum
\nof properties invariably present in one and the other but the
\ndivergence of flower from flower just like the divergence of star
\nfrom star, not in properties peculiar to a flower, but in accidents
\nlike size and peculiarities of shape and varying vividness of hues
\nand time and length of efflorescence. Moreover we perceive that
\nthe star is content to pierce the darkness with its rays and to burn
\nlike a brilliant diamond in the bodice of heaven, and is not ambitious to shed sweet perfumes upon space or to burden the heart
\nof the night with song, but develops the virtues of a star without
\naspiring to the virtues of a flower or a bird, and the rose is content to be an empress in colour and perfume and a gorgeous harmony of petals and is not ambitious to give light in the darkness
\nor to murmur a noontide song in response to the bee, but deve-  <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nlops the virtues of a rose without aspiring to the virtues of a bee
\nor a star. And so if we compare with the help of this new light the
\nrose and the star, we see that they are both alike in developing
\ntheir own virtues without aspiring to the virtues of one another.
\nAnd this is the case with every natural form of beauty animate
\nor inanimate, is it not?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson<\/i> : There can be no doubt of that.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then have we not found the dominant idea which
\ngoverns the variety of types ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I really believe we have.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And man if he wishes to be in proportion with the
\nother elements of the Cosmos, must be content to develop the
\nvirtues of a man without aspiring to the virtues of a rose or a star or any other element of the Cosmos.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : So it seems.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And when we talk of the virtues of a star, do we not
\nmean the inborn qualities and powers which are native to its
\nsidereal character, for example, brilliance and light?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/b><\/i> : <\/b>Of course.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And by the virtues of a flower the inborn qualities
\nand powers which are native to its floral character, such as fragrance, colour, delicacy of texture?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then by the virtue of a man we shall have to mean
\nthe inborn qualities and powers which are native to his humanity, such as \u2014 what shall we say ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That we can discover afterwards.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav<\/i> : Very well; but at any rate we can see already that
\nsome things are not inborn qualities and powers native to our
\nhumanity; and we know now why it is not an act of splendid
\nvirtue to turn somersaults in the air without any visible means of
\nsupport; for if we did that, we should not be developing the
\nvirtues 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
\nmethod.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is evident.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : So a man’s virtue lies not in turning somersaults
\nwithout any visible means of support, but in the perfect evolu-  <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\ntion of the inborn qualities and powers which are native to his
\nhumanity.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, and I believe these are the very words in which
\nyou described virtue before we started on our voyage of discovery.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : That is indeed gratifying: and if we have shown any
\nconstancy and perseverance in following our clue through the
\nlabyrinth, I at least am amply rewarded, who feel convinced by the identity of
\nthe idea I have derived from the pedestrian processes of logical inference with the idea I once caught on the
\nwings 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 willow-the-wisp of the imagination
\nto perish at last in a quagmire.<\/font><\/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
\nin his delusive cavern. And since the human brain is impatient
\nof abstract ideas but easily fixed and taken by concrete images,
\nlet me embody our ideas in a simile. I have an accurate remembrance of climbing a very steep and ragged rock on the Yorkshire
\nbeaches, where my only foothold was a ladder carved in the rock
\nwith the rungs so wide apart that I had to grasp tightly the juts
\nand jags and so haul myself up as slowly as a lizard, if I did not
\nprefer by a false step or misplaced confidence to drop down some
\nthirty feet on a rough sediment of sharp and polished pebbles.
\nIt occurs to me that what I did then in the body, I am doing now
\nin the spirit, and it is a reason for self-gratulation that I have
\nmounted safely to the second rung of the perilous ladder and am
\nnot lying shattered on the harsh and rasping pebbles of disappointment. And if I aspire to the third rung, I shall have less
\ncause for apprehension than in my Yorkshire peril, since I can
\nhardly fall to the beach but shall merely slip back to the rung
\nfrom which I am mounting. Let us then estimate our progress.
\nOur first rung was the basis of morality which we may describe
\nby the golden rule "apply to human life the principles dominant
\nin the Cosmos", and our second, as we now see, is the conception
\nof abstract virtue or the perfect expression of the human being<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nas a type in the Cosmos, and this we describe as the consistent
\nevolution of the inborn qualities and powers native to our
\nhumanity. Here then we have two rungs of the ladder, we must
\nnow be very careful in our selection of the third.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Is it not obviously the next stage to discover what
\nare the inborn qualities and powers native to our humanity?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Possibly. Yet have we not forgotten a signal omission we made when we drew inferences from the comparison of
\na beautifully written sentence to the beautifully arranged universe ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I am afraid I at least have forgotten. What was it ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Did we not compare the broad types in the Cosmos
\nto the words in a sentence and infer that as the dominant principle governing the word was the prevalence of the curve, so
\nthere must be a principle governing the type?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : We did.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And also that as in the letters within the word there
\nwere two prevalent lines the curve and the straight line, so within
\nthe broad or generic type there are individual types governed by
\nquite another principle.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That also. But surely you are not going to argue
\nfrom analogies?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Did we not argue from the beautifully written sentence merely because the principles of calligraphy proved to be
\nthe principles of every sort of harmony ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I confess we did; otherwise all we have been saying
\nwould be merely a brilliant explosion of fancy.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then we are logically justified in what we have been
\ndoing. Consider then how in a system of harmony, every part
\nhas to be harmonious in itself or else mar the universal music.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is true.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And the human race is a part of such a system, is
\nit not?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then must the human race become harmonious
\nwithin itself or continue to spoil the universal harmony.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Of course. How foolish of me to lose sight of that.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And so we have been elucidating the harmony of<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 42<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nman with the Cosmos and saying nothing about the harmony
\nof man with man ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Did we not relegate that for subsequent inquiry?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : We did, but I think the time for subsequent inquiry
\nhas come.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : It is too late in the day for me to distrust your guidance.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : <\/i> I do not think you will have reason to regret your
\nconfidence in me. Our line then will be to consider the internal
\nharmony of the race before we proceed farther.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : So it is best.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Here again we must start from our description of
\nbeauty as harmony in effect and proportion in detail and our
\ndescription of the latter as a regular variety or method in madness. Then just as in the Cosmos the individual type must vary
\nfrom all the other types, so in the human Cosmos the individual
\nman must vary from all other men.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is rather startling. Do you mean that there
\nought to be no point of contact?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : No, Broome; for we must always remember that
\nthe elements of a generic type must have certain virtues without
\nwhich they would not belong to the type: as the poet says<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Then where do you find your variety?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : If you will compare the elements of those types in
\nwhich the harmony is perfect, your ignorance will vanish like a
\nmist. You will see at once that every planet develops indeed his
\nplanetary qualities, but varies from every other planet, and if
\nVenus be the name and the star be feminine, is a dovelike white
\nin complexion and yields an effulgence more tender than a girl’s
\nblush, but if he is Mars, burns with the sanguine fire of battle
\nand rolls like a bloodshot eye through space, and if he is Saturn,
\nhas seven moons in his starry seraglio, and is richly orange in
\ncomplexion like vapour coloured by the sun’s pencil when he
\nsets, and wears a sevenfold girdle of burning fire blue as a witch’s
\neye and green as Love’s parrot and red as the lips of Cleopatra<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nand indeed of all manner of beautiful colours, and if he is Jupiter
\nor any one of the planets, has the qualities of that planet and has
\nnot the qualities of another, but develops his own personality
\nand has no regard for any model or the example of any other
\nplanet.<\/font><\/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
\nflower has indeed the qualities of its floral nature, but varies widely
\nfrom her sister beauties, and if she is a lily, hides in her argent
\nbeaker a treasure of golden dust and her beauty is a young and
\ninnocent bride on her marriage-morning, but if she is a crocus,
\nhas a bell-like beauty and is absorbed in the intoxication of her
\nown loveliness and wears now the gleaming robe of sunrise and
\nnow a dark and delicate purple, and now a soft and sorrowful
\npallor, but, if she is a rose, has the fragrance of a beautiful soul
\nand the vivid colour of a gorgeous poem, yet conceals a sharp
\nsting beneath the nestling luxury of her glorious petals, and if
\nshe is a hyacinth or honeysuckle or meadow-sweet, has the
\npoisonous perfume of the meadow-sweet or the soul-subduing
\nfragrance of the honeysuckle or the passionate cry of the hyacinth, and not the beautiful egoism of the crocus, or the oriental
\nsplendour of the rose, but develops her own qualities without
\naspiring to the qualities of any and every flower.<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nWilson <\/i> : That is the logical consequence.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then the description of individual virtue runs thus,
\nthe evolution by the human being of the inborn qualities and powers native to
\nhis personality; that is to say, just as every beautiful building has the solid earth for its basis but is built in a distinct style of architecture, so the beautiful human soul will rest
\non the solid basis of humanity but build up for itself a personality distinct and individual.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is exactly what the virtuous man must do.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And so with infinite ease and smoothness we have
\nglided up to the third rung of our ladder, as if we were running
\nup a broad and marble staircase. Here then let us stop and<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nreflect on all we have said and consider whether from confusion
\nof mind or inability to comprehend the whole situation we have
\nmade any mistake or omission. For my part I avow that my
\nthoughts have not been so lucid tonight as I could have wished.
\nWe are then to continue the inquiry in the Gardens on Tuesday
\nafternoon? I think that was what you suggested.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, on Tuesday at half-past two.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Would you mind my bringing Prince Paradox with
\nme ? He is anxious to hear how we are dealing with our idea and
\nas he will be perfectly willing to go to the lengths we have so far
\ngone, we need not fear that he will be a drag on us.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I am perfectly willing that he should come. The
\nmore, the merrier.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Not at this stage; for this intellectual ascent up the
\nprecipice of discovery, is indeed very exciting and pleasant, but
\nstrains the muscles of the mind more than a year’s academical
\nwork; and I trust that next time we shall bring it to a satisfying
\nconclusion.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nEND OF THE
\n<\/span>SECOND <\/span>BOOK<\/span><\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nBook Three<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

 
\nKeshav Ganesh <\/i>[Desai<\/i>] \u2014 Broome Wilson \u2014 Treneth<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : But we must not forget our purpose in being here.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Well, Broome, what do you
\nsay to our resuming our
\ncruise for the discovery of virtue ? I avow the speculation weighs
\non me, and I am impatient to see the last of it.<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nTreneth <\/i> : Ah, but you are really quite wrong, Wilson. Genius
\nis a capacity for being indolent.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Enter Prince Paradox! But seriously, Keshav, I
\nthink the argument will live beyond this afternoon and I give
\nwarning that I shall drag you all over the field of ethics before
\nwe have done with it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : It will be the corpse of my intellect you will maltreat. But in extremity I rely upon Treneth to slay my Argus
\nwith the bright edge of a paradox.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : We were at the third rung of the ladder, were we
\nnot?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Yes, thou slave-driving Ishmaelite. I declare it is
\nimpious on a day like this to bury ourselves in the gloomy vaults
\nof speculation. But as you will.<\/font><\/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.
\nWe happened to be weighing the ordinary principles of morality
\nand finding them all wanting cast about for a new principle and
\ndiscovered that beauty was the sole morality of the universe, and
\nit had colour, form and perfume as elements, harmony as its
\ngeneral effect and proportion, which we described as regular
\nvariety or method in madness, as the ulterior cause of the harmony, and we ventured to imagine that as all the other elements
\nof the universe were harmonious notes in a perfect sonata but the
\nhuman element had wilfully chosen to jar upon and ruin the<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nexquisite music, the right principle of virtue was wilfully
\n<\/b>to
\n<\/b>choose to mend the harmony we had ruined.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWith these projections from the rock of speculation to help us
\nwe climbed up the three steep and difficult rungs I am  going to
\ndescribe to you. We argued that the only way to remedy a note
\nthat rebels against the spirit of the composition is to reduce it
\ninto harmony with that spirit, and so arrived at the conclusion
\nthat the principle of morality is to apply to human life the principles that govern the rest of the Cosmos. There you have the
\nfirst rung of our ladder.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWe recommenced from this basis and by remembrance of the
\nnature of proportion or regular variety which is the cause of
\nharmony and appears throughout every natural type of beauty,
\nappears in the common principle which determines their line of
\nvariance from each other, we thought that in the elements of the
\nCosmos there must be such a common principle and found it to
\nbe the evolution by each element of its own peculiar virtue as
\ndistinct from the peculiar virtues of every other element, and so
\nreached our second conclusion, that just as astral virtue lies in the
\nevolution by the star of the inborn qualities and powers native to
\nits astral character, just so human virtue lies in the evolution by
\nthe human being of the inborn qualities and powers native to his
\nhumanity. This is the second rung of our ladder.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWith this second secure basis behind us, we went on to discover that within generic types such as the star, the flower, the
\nhuman being, there were individual types governed by the similar
\nbut different principle of evolving the individual as distinct from
\nthe generic virtues, or, when applied to the human being, of evolving the inborn qualities and powers native to his personality.
\nThis is the third rung of our ladder.<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nWilson <\/i> : Perfectly correct.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : My only quarrel with your conclusions is that you
\nhave wasted a couple of evenings in arriving at them. Why, except the first, they are mere axioms.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Yes, to the seeing eye they are axioms, but to the
\nunseeing eye they are paradoxes. The truths that are old and
\nstale to the philosopher, are to the multitude new and startling<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nand dangerous. But now that we have all mounted to the same
\nrung, let us pursue the ascent. And I suppose our immediate
\nstep will be to find whether the mere evolution of the inborn
\nqualities and powers is or is not the sole requisite for virtue.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Before we go to that, Keshav, you will have to meet
\na difficulty which you show every sign of evading.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Whatever difficulty there is, I am ready to solve,
\nbut I cannot guess to what you refer.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I suppose you will admit that a definition, to be
\nadequate, must have nothing vague or indefinite about it?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : If there is anything vague, it must be elucidated or
\nour statement falls to the ground.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : I dissent: a definite definition is a contradiction in
\nterms. I am for definite indefinitions.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I am not in extremities yet, Prince Paradox.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Well now, is not your phrasing "the inborn qualities
\nand powers native to our humanity" very vague and indefinite?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Indefinite, I admit, and I
\ncannot think that an objection but I plead not guilty to the charge of vagueness.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: You think with Treneth that a definition should not
\nbe definite.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : If by being definite is implied reduction to its primal
\nelements you will agree with me that a definition need not be
\ndefinite: or do you want me to enumerate the qualities native to
\nour humanity such as physical vigour, and the faculty of inference and sexual passion and I do not know how many more ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : You shall not escape me so easily, Keshav. You
\nare merely spinning dialectical cobwebs which give a specious
\nappearance to the pit in which you would have us fall.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then by pointing out the trap, you can easily sweep
\naway my sophistical cobwebs, my good Broome.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : What penalty for a pun?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : No penalty, for to punish a lie on the information
\nof Beelzebub is to do God’s work at the devil’s bidding.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, a penalty: you shall be taken at your word.
\nYou are setting a trap for us, when you try to shuffle in your
\nphrase about the qualities native to our humanity. If we leave
\nthis inexplicit and unlimited, you will be at liberty to describe any<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nquality you choose as a virtue and any other
\nquality you choose as a defect by assuming in your own insinuating manner that
\nit is or is not native to our humanity. And in reality there is a very distinct
\ngulf between those of our qualities which are native to our humanity and those
\nothers which belong to the animal nature we are working out of our composition;
\nfor example between lust and love, of which one belongs to the lower animal
\nnature and the other to the higher spiritual. You are ignoring
\nthe distinction and by ignoring it, you ignore the patent fact of
\nevolution.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : To ignore facts is the beginning of thought.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : No, but to forget facts for the time being \u2014 that is
\nthe beginning of thought.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : My dear Keshav, pray don’t trail a red paradox
\nacross the path.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : It was the other boy who did it. To return to the
\nsubject, are you really unconscious of the flagrant errors of which
\nyou have been so lavish in a little space?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I am quite unconscious of any error.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : You have made three to my knowledge, and the
\nfirst is your assumption that what is animal cannot be human.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Can you disprove it?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Can you prove it ? In the first place you cannot tell
\nwhat is animal and what is not.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Why, the qualities possessed by human beings as
\ndistinct from animals are those which are not animal.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And, I suppose, qualities possessed in common by
\nhuman beings and animals, are animal ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : You are right.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And such qualities ought to be worked out of our
\ncomposition ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, as Tennyson says, we ought to be<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n                          working out<\/font><\/p>\n

\n                     The tiger and the ape.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then we ought to get rid of fidelity, ought we not?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Why so?<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Because it is a quality possessed in common by the
\ndog and the human being, and the dog is an animal.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : Of course we should. Fidelity is a disease like
\nconscience.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And infidelity is a quality possessed in common by
\nthe cat and the human being, and therefore we ought to get rid
\nof infidelity.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : Again of course; for infidelity is merely a relative
\nterm, and if fidelity is not, then how can infidelity be ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And so we must get rid of all opposing qualities
\nand acquire a dead neutrality ? Your ambition then is not to be a
\npersonality, but to be a \u2014 negative ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : I confess you have taken one in the flank; even my
\nparadoxes will not carry me so far.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And you, Broome, are you willing to break down
\nthe ladder by which we are climbing?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Not for a moment. What I mean is that the qualities
\npossessed in common by all the animals and the human being
\nare animal.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : <\/b><\/i> Is not the human being an animal?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, scientifically.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : But not really?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Well, he is something more than an animal.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : You mean he has other qualities besides those
\nwhich belong to the animal type?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: <\/i>That is what I mean.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> :<\/font> <\/font>
\nAnd has not the planet other qualities beside those<\/font>
\n<\/font>which belong to the astral type?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: <\/i>Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> :<\/font> <\/font>
\nDoes that warrant us in saying that a planet is not<\/font>
\n<\/font>really a star?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: <\/i>No.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> :<\/font> <\/font>
\nAnd are we warranted in saying that man is not<\/font>
\n<\/font>really an animal?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson
\n<\/i>:
\n<\/i>We are not.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And the animal world is an element in the Cosmos,<\/font>
\n<\/font>is it not?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson<\/i><\/font>
\n: <\/font>Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Is it not then the virtue of an animal to evolve the
\nqualities and powers native to his animality?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I suppose so.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And man, being an animal, ought also to evolve
\nthe qualities and powers native to his animality.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: <\/i> That seems to follow, but is not this to cancel our
\nold description of human virtue and break down our second
\nrung?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : No, for just as the qualities native to a planet
\ninclude the qualities native to a star, so the qualities native to
\nthe human type include the qualities native to the animal type.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I quite agree with you now. What was my second
\nerror?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : You talked of the lower animal nature and the higher
\nspiritual nature and in so talking assumed that the qualities
\npeculiar to the human being are higher than the qualities he
\nshares 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 and with the wild-duck of the Indian marshes who cannot sleep the livelong night
\nbecause Nature has severed him from his mate but ever wails
\nacross the cold and lapping water with passionate entreaty that
\nshe may solace his anguish with even a word, and travellers
\nstraying in the forest hear his forlorn cry "Love, speak to me!"
\nNo, we can only say of varying qualities that one is beautiful
\nand another less beautiful, or not beautiful at all; and beauty
\ndoes not reside in being animal or being more than animal but in
\nsomething very different.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : And my third error?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Your third error was to confound evolution with
\nelimination.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : And does it not really come to that?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : The vulgar opinion, which finds a voice as usual in
\nTennyson \u2014 what opinion of the British average does he not
\necho ? \u2014 the vulgar opinion learns that the principle of evolution or gradual perfection is the reigning principle of life and
\nadopts the idea to its own stupid fallacy that perfection implies<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nthe elimination of all that is vivid and picturesque and likely to
\nfoster a personality. Evolution does not eliminate but perfects.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : But surely perfection tends to eliminate what is imperfect?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Oh I don’t deny that we have lost our tails, but so
\nhas a Manx cat.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : Dear me! that is a fruitful idea. A dissertation
\nproving that the Manx cat is the crowning effort of Evolution
\nmight get me a Fellowship.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : <\/b> It would deserve it for its originality. Moreover if
\nwe have lost our tails, we have also lost our wings.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : I 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.
\nJust fancy the Dean and Provost pacing up to the Communion
\nTable with a fine long tail swishing about their ears! What a
\nglorious lesson! What a sublime and instructive spectacle!<\/font> 
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : You are incorrigibly frivolous, Treneth.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : If Prince Paradox is frivolous, he is virtuous, insofar
\nas he is developing the virtue most intimately native to his personality; and the inquiry is dull enough at present to bear occasional touches of enlivening laughter.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yet the inquiry must pass through stifling underground galleries and to avoid them is puerile.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I am at one with you, but if we must dive under the
\nground, there is no need to linger there.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nEvolution does not eliminate, but perfects. The cruelty that
\nblossoms out in the tiger, has its seeds deep down in the nature
\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
\njust and artistic, is in the man savage and crude and inharmonious and must be cultured and refined, until it becomes a virtue
\nand fits as gracefully and harmlessly into the perfect character,
\nas its twin-brother physical courage, and physical love, its remote
\nrelative.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nWilson <\/i> : You are growing almost as paradoxical as Prince
\nParadox, Keshav.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Look for Truth and you will find her at the bottom
\nof a paradox. Are you convinced that animal qualities are not the
\nworse for being animal ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Perfectly convinced.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And here I cannot do better than quote a sentence
\nthat like so many of Meredith’s sentences, goes like a knife to the
\nroot of the matter. "As she grows in the flesh when discreetly
\ntended, nature is unimpeachable, flowerlike, yet not too decoratively a flower; you must have her with the stem, the thorns, the
\nroots, and the fat bedding of roses." And since I have quoted
\nthat immortal chapter so overloaded with truth critical, truth
\npsychologic and truth philosophic, let me use two other sentences to point the
\nmoral of this argument and bid you embrace "Reality’s infinite sweetness" and "touch the skirts of philosophy
\nby sharing her hatred of the sham decent, her derision of sentimentalism." May we not now ascend to the fourth rung?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, I think we may go on.<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nWilson <\/i> : Plainly it will.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And is it really enough to be merely cruel?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth<\/i> : No, for to be inartistic is the only sin.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Your paradox cuts to the heart of the truth. Can
\nyou tell me, Broome, whether is the rose more beautiful than
\nthe bramble or the bramble than the rose?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Obviously the rose than the bramble.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And why is this ? <\/b> Is it not because the thorn develops unduly the thorn and does not harmonize it with leaves but
\nis careless of proportion and the eternal principle of harmony,
\nand is beautiful indeed as an element in the harmony of plants
\nbut has no pretensions to personal beauty but the rose subdues
\nthe thorn into harmony with the leaf and the blossoms and is
\nperfectly beautiful in herself no less than as an element in the<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nharmony of flowers?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I believe you are right.<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nWilson <\/i> : You are right; then only will it be a real virtue.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : So we must modify our description of virtue by
\naffixing an epithet to the word ‘evolution’ and preferably I think
\nthe epithet ‘perfect’ which does not imply size or degree or intensity or anything but justness of harmony, for example in a poem
\nwhich is not called perfect when it is merely long drawn out or
\noverflowing with passion or gorgeous even to swooning, but
\nwhen it blends all the elements of beauty into an irreproachable
\nharmony. We shall then describe virtue as the perfect evolution
\nby the human being of the inborn qualities and powers native to
\nhis personality.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : With that I have no quarrel, but am I too inquisitive
\nwhen I ask you how cruelty and tenderness can live together?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : My dear Broome, I shall never think you too
\ninquisitive but above all things desire that you should have a clear
\nintelligence of my meaning. Have you never learned by experience or otherwise how a girl will torment her favoured lover
\nby a delicate and impalpable evasion of his desires and will not
\ngive him even the loan of a kiss without wooing, but must be
\ninfinitely entreated and stretch him on the rack of a half-serious
\nrefusal 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
\nhe asks for and would indeed be more bitterly disappointed
\nthan he, if any accident precluded her from making him happy?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, I know some women are like that.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : If you had said most women are like that, you would
\nhave hit the truth more nearly. And this trait in women we
\nimpute to feminine insincerity and to maiden coyness and to
\neverything but the real motive, and that is the primitive and
\neternal passion of cruelty appearing in the coarse fibre of man as<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\ncrude and inartistic barbarity, but in the sweet and delicate soul
\nof woman as a refined and beautiful playfulness and the inseparable correlative of a gentle and suave disposition.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : But I am inclined to credit the girl with the purpose
\nof giving a keener relish to the gratified desire by enhancing the
\ndifficulty of attainment, and in that case she will be actuated
\nnot by cruelty but always by tenderness.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : You think she is actuated by the principles of Political Economy? I cannot agree with you.<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nKeshav <\/i> : Your distinction is subtle and suggestive, Treneth,
\nbut it never occurred to me in that light before.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : It never occurred to me<\/i> in that light before.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Yet I do not think it applies to our lovers, and
\n<\/b>it
\n<\/b>does not apply always, for the poem I have perfected with labour
\nand thought is surely dearer to me than the light carol thrown off
\nin the happy inspiration of the moment. Rapid generalities seldom cover more than a few cases. So I will take Broome on his
\nown ground, not because I cannot adduce other instances of
\ncruelty and tenderness living in wedded felicity, but because I
\ndo not want to fatigue myself by recollecting them. And now,
\nBroome, will you say that a tyrant who desires to give his favourite a keener relish of luxury and strains him on the rack and
\nwashes him with scalding oil and dries him with nettles and flays
\nhim with whips and then only comforts him with the luxury of
\ndowny pillows and velvet cushions and perfect repose, has not
\nbeen actuated by cruelty but always by tenderness?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/b><\/i>: <\/b>Oh, of course, if you cite extravagant instances!<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And will you say that the girl who wishes to give
\nher kiss a sweeter savour on the lips of her favourite and strains
\nhim on the rack of suspense and washes him with the scalding
\noil of despair and dries him with the nettles of hope and flays
\nhim with the whips of desire and then only comforts him with<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nthe velvet luxury of a kiss and the downy cushion of an embrace
\nand the perfect repose of desire fulfilled, has not been actuated
\nby cruelty but always by tenderness and not rather that all
\nunnecessary pain is cruelty to the sufferer ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Certainly, unnecessary pain is cruelty.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Are you perfectly satisfied?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Perfectly satisfied.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : We have discovered then that perfect evolution is
\nrequisite for perfect virtue, but I do not think we have distilled its
\nfull flavour into the epithet. Or are you of the opinion that we
\nwant nothing more than the harmonizing of all the inborn
\nqualities ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I cannot think of any other requisite.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Can you, Treneth?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : I was much attracted by something you said in the
\nbeginning about the elements of beauty and I suspect it is these
\nwe want now.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : You have exactly hit it. We
\ndescribed it as not merely harmony in effect and 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.
\nBut in confining our outlook to harmony and proportion we
\nhave talked as if human virtue were merely possessed of one of
\nthe elements; yet is there any reason to suppose that human
\nvirtue does not possess the whole three?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : No reason whatever.<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Well, might we not inquire whether it does possess
\nall three, and if it does not, whether it may not legitimately or,
\nto speak more properly, may not artistically possess all three?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : By all means, let us inquire.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And if we find that it may artistically possess them,
\nthen, if our theory that beauty should be the governing principle
\nin all things, is really correct, must we not say that they not only
\nmay but ought to possess all three?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Evidently we must.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : That is as plain as a Cambridge laundress.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And it is clear that all qualities may, with diligence,
\nbe entirely divested of colour, form and perfume, and when<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

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

\n

\nthey have reached the stage of wanting every single element of
\nbeauty, we need take no notice of them, for they have no longer
\nanything to do with virtue, until they begin to redevelop.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Obviously, for we are talking of perfect virtue or
\nperfect beauty of character.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Now if we have not the qualities requisite for a given
\naction, we shall not achieve the action, supposing we attempt
\nit, but shall only achieve a blunder, is it not so?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Clearly.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : But if we have the qualities, we are likely to achieve
\nthe action?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Necessarily.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then is not action the outward manifestation of a
\nquality, and I include in action any movement physical or intellectual which is visible or whose effects are visible to the human
\nunderstanding ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, but may not an action manifest the want of
\na quality?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : No doubt, but we need not touch on those, since we
\nhave not to develop defects in order to be virtuous, or do you
\nthink we need?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : Clearly not: negatives cannot be virtues.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : That is a very just sentiment and I shall have occasion to recall it. Now is not a battle the outward manifestation
\nof the warlike qualities?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : <\/i> <\/font>
\nEvidently.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> :<\/font> <\/font>
\nAnd composition the outward manifestation of<\/font> 
\n<\/font>the poetical qualities, I mean, of course, the qualities of a maker?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And do we not mean that the poetical qualities express themselves in composition just as the sidereal in a star?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: We do.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And is not the star the form of the sidereal qualities ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson
\n<\/i>:
\n<\/i>Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> :
\n<\/i>Then is not composition the form of the poetical<\/font>
\n<\/font>qualities ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: <\/i>That follows.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> :<\/font> <\/font>
\nAnd battle of the warlike qualities ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 57<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nWilson<\/i>: That also.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then is not action the form of a quality, that is to
\nsay, the shape in which it expresses itself?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : So it seems.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : So we find that virtue has a form.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : But may not qualities have a form apart from
\naction?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : <\/b> For example, thought.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : But the expression of thought is included in action
\nfor our purpose.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : For our purpose only.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : As you please. I merely want to use one projection
\nfrom the rock and not imperil my neck by clutching two in one
\nhand.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : I am satisfied.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I suppose, Broome, you mean by form a concrete
\nshape ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I suppose so.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then you must see that qualities unexpressed in
\naction are wholly chaotic and formless; and I mean within the
\nscope of action, the expression of thought and the act of sitting
\nor standing or lying down and the act of being indolent and anything that by any legitimate stretch of language may be called an
\nact.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I too am satisfied.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then we are agreed that a quality must possess
\nform, that is to say, express itself in action or it will not be a
\nvirtue ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : May it not prefer to express itself in perfume and
\ncolour ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I had forgotten that.<\/font><\/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, and
\nits prosperity lies in the eye that sees it, and if the retina of the eye
\nis perfect, every different shade impresses itself, but if imperfect,
\nthen the eye is blind to one or more colours. Will you agree with
\nme when I say that anything to which we give the name of
\ncolour must be the reverse of concrete ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 58<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That follows.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then the colour of a virtue must be the reverse of
\nconcrete.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Evidently.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Now let us take metaphor into our counsel, for
\nmetaphor has sometimes an intuitive way of chiming consonantly
\nwith the truth; and metaphor tells us that we often talk of
\na scarlet and sinful character and of a white and innocent
\ncharacter and of neutral and drab-coloured character, and assign
\nvarious colours to various women and call one woman a splendid
\ncarnation, for we are fond of comparing women to flowers, and
\nanother a beautiful and gorgeous rose, and a third a pure and
\nsinless lily and yet another a modest violet betraying herself only
\nby her fragrance, and are all the while implying that to the
\nimaginative eye, if the retina is perfect, various characters have
\nvarious colours. Do you follow me?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : Yes, the idea is fine.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : And true.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : That is immaterial.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And character is the composition of qualities just
\nas a poem is the composition of sounds and a painting the composition of pigments.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : <\/i> <\/font>
\nYes, just in that sense.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> :<\/font> <\/font>
\nThen is it not plain that if a character has colour,<\/font>
\n<\/font>the qualities of which it is composed must have colour.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: <\/i>I think it is.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> :<\/font> <\/font>
\nAnd colour is not concrete, but an effect on the<\/font>
\n<\/font>retina of the eye?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i>: <\/i>So we said.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> :<\/font> <\/font>
\nThen is not the colour of a quality its effect on the<\/font>
\n<\/font>retina of the imaginative eye?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav<\/i><\/font>
\n:
\n<\/font>And a quality in itself may be formless ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson<\/i><\/font>
\n:
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

Yes.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i>: Then to the imaginative eye is not a quality pure<\/font>
\n<\/font>colour ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson<\/i><\/font>
\n:
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

I suppose so.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> :<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

But the imaginative eye is not one of the perceptive<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 59<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\neyes, for it perceives what does not exist, but the perceptive eye
\nonly what does exist.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : You are right.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I mean that nothing without form can have an effect
\non the retina of the perceptive eye.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is evident.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then to be visible to the perceptive eye, the colour
\nof a quality, which is really the soul of the quality, must suffuse
\nthe action which expresses it, which is the body of the quality.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/b><\/i> : <\/b>It must.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And is colour without form a perfect type of
\nbeauty?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : No.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then a quality must suffuse its body with its soul,
\nor, since the word action is growing ambiguous, its expression
\nwith its colour.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Yes, I agree to that.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And so the quality will so suffuse its expression as
\nto be visible to the perceptive eye, just as the soul of a rose,
\nwhich is the effect on the retina of the imaginative eye, suffuses her form with
\ncolour which is the effect on the retina of the perceptive eye, and varies according to the variety of colours, and if
\ntwo roses have the same form but one is crimson and the other
\nyellow, the soul of the red rose is seen to be scarlet with unholy
\npassion, but the soul of the yellow rose is seen to be dull and
\nblanched and languid, like the reaction after extremely voluptuous enjoyment.<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nTreneth <\/i> : By no means; for qualities are not hewn of marble
\nor cast in beaten gold or chiselled in Indian ivory, but are
\nmoulded in the delicate and flower-like texture of human emotion and, if colourless, are scarcely beautiful.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Then we are agreed that a quality must possess
\nboth form and colour or will not be a perfect virtue.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : Plainly.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 60<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I am afraid I hardly understand what we are saying.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I am certain I do not; but we must follow where the
\nargument leads us, and I have a glimmering intelligence which
\nI hope to see expanding into perfect daylight; but I do not want
\nany side issue to distract my thoughts and will go on to inquire
\nwhat is the perfume of a quality: for I am like a frail canoe that
\nwavers through a tranquil to be buffeted outside by the swelling
\nwaters and have with difficulty plunged through these two waves
\nof form and colour, when I see rolling down on me with its curled
\nforehead this third wave of perfume which I do not hope to outlive. But to the venturous Fortune is as compliant as a captive
\nBriseis and I will boldly plunge into the crash of the breaking
\nwater and call manner the perfume of a quality, for in manner
\nresides the subtle aroma and sense of something delicious but impalpable which is what we mean by perfume.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : With your usual good luck you have notched your<\/font> 
\n<\/font>mark in the centre.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : So by audacity I have outlived the third wave and
\nam more than ever convinced that you must take liberties with
\nFortune before she will love you.<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nWilson <\/i> : From our description of beauty, that is evident.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : I plead not guilty on behalf of the sunflower, but<\/font>
\n<\/font>agree with the sentiment.<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nTreneth <\/i> : It is likely.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Let us at least make an attempt.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : We will call on the stage the girl and her lover, who
\nhave been so useful to us. It is clear at once that if she is not<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 61<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nvirtuous but harmonizes the elements of beauty unskilfully, the
\npassion of her favourite will wither and not expand.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That is clear.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : What then will be her manner of harmonizing
\nthem?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : <\/i> I return the question to you.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Well now, will she not harmonize the phases of her
\ndalliance, and hesitate on the brink of yielding just at the proper
\npitch of his despair, and elude his kiss just at the proper pitch
\nof his expectancy, and fan his longing when it sinks, and check
\nit when it rises, and surrender herself when he is smouldering
\nwith hopeless passion?<\/font><\/p>\n

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

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

\nWilson <\/i> : It is.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : But she will not do this grossly and palpably, but
\nwill lead up to everything by looks and tones and gestures so as
\nto 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 coquette and artist
\nin flirtation.<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\nKeshav <\/i> : And is not that to give a subtle perfume to her dalliance?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : I suppose it is.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : 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
\nthe flowers, and in a word allow the blended cruelty and sweetness of her soul to be just palpable to his perceptive senses?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : She will.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And is not that to suffuse her dalliance with colour ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : Plainly.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And moreover she will not allow her affectation of
\nthe natural to be too imperfect to conceal her art or so heavily
\nscented as to betray the intention, or the colour to be unnotice-<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 62<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nable from slightness or from intensity to spoil the delicate effect
\nof her perverseness, or the form to engross too largely the attention, or indeed any element to fall too short or carry too far, but
\nwill subdue the whole trio into a just and appropriate harmony.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : If she wants to be a perfect flirt, that is what she
\nwill do.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And if coquetry is native in her, to be a perfect flirt
\nwill be highest pinnacle of virtue.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : That follows from the premises.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : And so here we have a concrete example of perfect
\nvirtue, and begin to understand what we mean by the perfect
\nevolution of an inborn quality, or are you still unenlightened ?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : No, I perfectly understand.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : Hither then we have climbed with much more laborious
\neffort and have almost cut our hands in two on the projections, but do at last really stand on the fourth and last rung of
\nthe ladder.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWilson <\/i> : 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 many
\nthings to ask you and you have as yet spoken nothing of the
\nrelations between man and man and how this new morality is to
\nbe modified by the needs of society and what justice means and
\nwhat self-sacrifice and indeed a thousand things which will need
\nmany hours to investigate.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : I am Frankenstein saddled with a monster of my
\nown making and have made a man to my ruin and a young man
\nto my hurt. Nevertheless "lead on, monster: we’ll follow."<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : Will you not rest on the fourth rung and have a
\ncup of tea in my rooms before you resume.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : But shall we not put a stop to your spheroids and
\ntrianguloids and asinoids and all the other figures of mathematical ingenuity?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTreneth <\/i> : I am at present watching a body which revolves on
\nsix screws and is consequently very drunk; and a day off will
\nsensibly assist my speculations.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nKeshav <\/i> : So let it be, but before we go I may as well recall
\nto you at a glance what is our fourth rung.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 63<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nWe have expanded our description of virtue as the evolution
\nof the inborn qualities native to our personality, by throwing
\nin the epithet "perfect", and have interpreted the full flavour of the
\nepithet in words to the effect that qualities 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
\nand must subdue all three into a just appropriate harmony.
\nWith this conviction in our souls we will journey on, despising
\nthe censure and alarm of the reputable, and evolve our inborn
\nqualities and powers into a beautiful and harmonious perfection,
\nuntil we walk delicately like living poems through a radiant air,
\nand will not stunt the growth of any branch or blossom, but will
\nprefer to the perishable laurels of this world a living crown of
\nglory, and hear through the chaotic murmur of the ages the
\nsolemn question of Christ "What profiteth it a man if he own the whole
\nworld and lose his own soul ?" and will answer according to the melodious doctrines of philosophy and acquire by a
\nlife of perfect beauty the peace of God that passeth all understanding.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage <\/font>
\n\u2013 64<\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SECTION ONE THE HARMONY OF VIRTUE   1890-92   "I read more than once Plato’s Republic and Symposium, but only extracts from his other writings….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-03-the-harmony-of-virtue-volume-03","wpcat-4-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48","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=48"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}