 CHAPTER IX. THE BATTLE WITH THE DRAGON Lita or Ludd has already been noted as the legendary birthplace of St. George, and as the camp on the edge of the desert from which as it happened, I caught the first glimpse of the colored fields of Palestine that looked like the fields of Paradise. Being an encampment of soldiers, it seems an appropriate place for St. George, and indeed it may be said that all that red and empty land has resounded with his name like a shield of copper or of bronze. The name was not even confined to the cries of the Christians. A curious imaginative hospitality in the Muslim mind, a certain innocence and imitative enthusiasm, made the Muslims also half-accept a sort of Christian mythology and make an abstract hero of St. George. It is said that Cordilion, on these very sands, first invoked the soldier saint to bless the English battle-line, and blazed his cross on the English banners. But the name occurs not only in the stories of the victory of Richard, but in the enemy stories that led up to the great victory of Saladin. In that obscure and violent quarrel which let loose the disaster of Hatin, when the grand master of the Templars, Gerard the Englishman, from Bidford on Devon, drove with demented heroism his few lances against a host. There fell among those radiant fanatics one Christian warrior who had made with his single sword such a circle of the slain that the victorious Muslims treated even his dead body as something supernatural, and bore it away with them with honor, saying it was the body of St. George. But if the purpose of the camp be appropriate to the story of St. George, the position of the camp might be considered appropriate to the more fantastic story of St. George and the Dragon. The symbolic struggle between man and monster might very well take place somewhere where the green culture of the fields meets the red desolation of the desert. As a matter of fact I dare say legend locates the duel itself somewhere else, but I am only making use of the legend as a legend, or even as a convenient figure of speech. I would only use it here to make a kind of picture, which may clarify a kind of paradox very vital to our present attitude toward all Palestinian traditions, including those that are more sacred even than St. George. This paradox has already been touched on in the last chapter about polytheistic spirits or superstitions, such as surrounded the Old Testament. But it is yet more true of the criticisms and apologetics surrounding the New Testament. And the paradox is this, that we never find our own religion so right as when we find we are wrong about it. I mean that we are finally convinced not by the sort of evidence we are looking for, by the sort of evidence we are not looking for. We are convinced when we come on a ratification that is almost as abrupt as a refutation. That is the point about the wireless telegraphy or wordless telepathy of the Bedouins. A supernatural trick in a dingy tribe wandering in a dry place is not the sort of supernaturalism we should expect to find. It is only the sort that we do find. These rocks of the desert, like the bones of a berry giant, do not seem to stick out where they ought to, but they stick out and we fall over them. Whatever we think of St. George, most people would see a mere fairytale in St. George and the Dragon. I dare say they are right, and I only use it here as a figure for the sake of argument. But suppose for the sake of argument that a man has come to the conclusion that there probably was such a person as St. George, in spite of all the nonsense about dragons and the chimera with wings and claws, that has somehow interleaved itself with this image. Perhaps he is a little biased by patriotism or other ethical aims, and thinks the saint a good social ideal. Perhaps he knows that early Christianity, so far from being a religion of pacifists, was largely a religion of soldiers. Anyhow he thinks St. George himself a quite sufficient, solid, and historical figure and has little doubt that records or traces can be found of him. Now the point is this. Suppose that man goes to the land of the legendary combat and finds comparatively few or faint traces of the personality of St. George. But suppose he does find, on that very field of combat, the bones of a gigantic monster, unlike every other creature except the legendary dragon. Or suppose he only finds ancient eastern sculptures and hieroglyphics representing maidens being sacrificed to such a monster, and making it quite clear that even within historic times one of those sacrificed was a princess. It is surely clear that he will be considerably impressed by this confirmation. Not of the part he did believe, but actually of the part he did not believe. He has not found what he expected, but he has found what he wanted, and much more than he wanted. He has not found a single detail directly in support of St. George, but he had found a very considerable support of St. George and the dragon. It is needless to inform the reader, I trust, that I do not think this particular case in the least likely, or that I am only using it for the sake of lucidity. Even as it stands it would not necessarily make a man believe the traditional story, but it would make him guess that it was some sort of tradition of some sort of truth, that there was something in it, and much more in it, than even he himself had imagined. And the point of it would be precisely that his reason had not anticipated the extent of his revelation. He has proved the improbable, not the probable thing. Reason had already taught him the reasonable part, but facts had taught him the fantastic part. He will certainly conclude that the whole story is very much more valid than anybody has supposed. Now as I have already said, it is not in the least likely that this will happen touching the particular tale of Palestine. But this is precisely what really has happened touching the most sacred and tremendous of all the tales of Palestine. This is precisely what has happened touching that central figure, round which the monster and the champion are alike, only ornamental symbols. And by the right of whose tragedy even St. George's cross does not belong to St. George. It is not likely to be true of the desert duel between George and the dragon. But it is already true of the desert duel between Jesus and the devil. St. George is but a servant, and the dragon is but a symbol, but it is precisely about the central reality, the mystery of Christ and his mastery of the powers of darkness, that this very paradox has proved itself a fact. Going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, I was more than once moved by a flippant and possibly profane memory of the swine that rushed down a steep place into the sea. I do not insist on the personal parallel, for whatever my points of resemblance to a pig I am not a flying pig, a pig with wings of speed and precipitancy, and if I am possessed of a devil, it is not the blue devil of suicide. But the phrase came back to my mind, because going down to the Dead Sea does really involve rushing down a steep place. Indeed, it gives a strange impression that the whole of Palestine is one single steep place. It is as if all other countries lay flat under the sky, but this one country had been tilted sideways. This gigantic gesture of geography or geology, this sweep as of a universal landslide, is the sort of thing that is never conveyed by any maps or brooks or even pictures. All the pictures of Palestine I have seen are descriptive details, groups of costume or corners of architecture, at most views of famous places. They cannot give the bottomless vision of this long descent. We went in a little rocking Ford car down steep and jagged roads among ribbed and collomed cliffs. But the roads below soon failed altogether, and the car had to tumble like a tank over rocky banks and into empty river beds, long before it came to the sinister and discolored landscape of the Dead Sea. And the distance looks far enough on the map and seems long enough in the motor journey. To make a man feel he has come to another part of the world. Yet so much is it all a single fall of land that even when he gets out beyond Jordan in the wild country of the Sharif, he can still look back and see, small and faint as if in the clouds, the spire of the Russian church, I fancy upon the hill of the Ascension. And though the story of the swine is attached in truth to another place, I was still haunted with its fanciful appropriateness to this one, because of the very steepness of this larger slope and the mystery of that larger sea. I even had the fancy that one might fish for them and find them in such a sea, turned into monsters, sea swine, or four legged fishes, swollen with evil eyes, grown over with seagrass for bristles, the ghosts of Gdera. And then it came back to me as a curiosity and almost a coincidence that the same strange story had actually been selected as the text for the central controversy of the Victorian age between Christianity and criticism. The two champions were two of the greatest men of the nineteenth century, Huxley representing scientific skepticism and Gladstone, scriptural orthodoxy. The scriptural champion was universally regarded as standing for the past, if not for the dead past, and the scientific champion as standing for the future, if not the final judgment of the world. And yet the future has been entirely different to anything that anybody expected, and the final judgment may yet reverse all the conceptions of their contemporaries and even of themselves. The philosophical position now is in a very curious way the contrary of the position then. Gladstone had the worst of the argument and has been proved right. Huxley had the best of the argument and has been proved wrong. At any rate he has been ultimately proved wrong about the way the world was going and the probable position of the next generation. What he thought indisputable is disputed, and what he thought dead is rather too much alive. Huxley was not only a man of genius in logic and rhetoric, he was a man of a very manly and generous morality. Morally he deserves much more sympathy than many of the mystics who have supplanted him, but they have supplanted him. In the more mental fashions of the day, most of what he thought would stand has fallen, and most of what he thought would fall is standing yet. In the gathering controversy with Gladstone, he announced that as his purpose to purge the Christian ideal, which he thought self-evidently sublime of the Christian demonology, which he thought self-evidently ridiculous. And yet if we take any typical man of the next generation, we shall very probably find Huxley's sublime things scoffed at, and Huxley's ridiculous things taken seriously. I imagine a very typical child of the age succeeding Huxleys may be found in Mr. George Moore. He has one of the most critical, appreciative, and atmospheric talents of the age. He has lived in most of the sets of the age, and through most of the fashions of the age. He has held at one time or another most of the opinions of the age. Above all he has not only thought for himself, but done it with peculiar pomp and pride. He would consider himself the freest of all free thinkers. Let us take him as a type and a test of what has really happened to Huxley's analysis of the gold and the dross. Huxley quoted as the indestructible ideal, the noble passage in Micah beginning, he has showed the O man that which is good. And as scornfully whether anybody was ever likely to suggest that justice was worthless or that mercy was unlovable, and whether anything would diminish the distance between ourselves and the ideals that we reverence. And yet, already, perhaps, Mr. George Moore was anticipating Nightshe, sailing near as he said the sunken rocks about the cave of Zarathustra. He said, if I remember right, that Cromwell should be admired for his injustice. He implied that Christ should be condemned, not because he destroyed this wine, but because he delivered the sick. In short, he found justice quite worthless, and mercy quite unlovable. And as for humility and the distance between himself and his ideals, he seemed rather to suggest, at this time at least, that his somewhat varying ideals were only interesting because they had belonged to himself. Some of this it is true was only on the confessions of a young man, but it is the whole point here that they were then the confessions of a young man, and that Huxleys, in comparison, were the confessions of an old man. The trend of the new time, in varying degrees, was tending to undermine not merely the Christian demonology, not merely the Christian theology, not merely the Christian religion, but definitely the Christian ethical ideal, which had seemed to the great agnostic as secure as the stars. But while the world was mocking the morality he had assumed, it was bringing back the mysticism he had mocked. The next phrase of Mr. George Moore himself, whom I have taken as a type of the time, was the serious and sympathetic consideration of Irish mysticism, as embodied in Mr. W. B. Yates. I have myself heard Mr. Yates about that time-tell-a-story to illustrate how concrete and even comic is the reality of the supernatural, saying that he knew a farmer whom the fairies had dragged out of bed and beaten. Now suppose Mr. Yates had told Mr. Moore, then moving in this glamorous atmosphere, another story of the same sort. Suppose he had said that the farmer's pigs had fallen under the displeasure of some magician of the sort he celebrates, who had conjured bad fairies into the quadruplets so that they went in a wild dance down to the village pond. Would Mr. Moore have thought that story any more incredible than the other? Would he have thought it worse than a thousand other things a modern mystic may lawfully believe? Would he have risen to his feet and told Mr. Yates that all was over between them? Not a bit of it. He would at least have listened with a serious, naïve solemn face. He would think it a grim little grotesque of rustic diablary, a quaint tale of goblins, neither less nor more improbable than hundreds of psychic fantasies or farces, for which there is really a good deal of evidence. He would be ready to entertain the idea if he found it anywhere except in the New Testament. As for the more vulgar and universal fashions that have followed after the Celtic movement, they have left such trifles far behind, and they have been directed not by imaginative artists like Mr. Yates or even Mr. Moore, but by a solid scientific students like Sir William Crooks and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I find it easier to imagine an evil spirit agitating the legs of a pig than a good spirit agitating the legs of a table. But I will not here enter into the argument, since I am only trying to describe the atmosphere. Whatever has happened in more recent years, what Huxley expected has certainly not happened. There has been a revolt against Christian morality, and where there has not been a return of Christian mysticism, it has been a return of the mysticism without Christianity. Mysticism itself has returned. With all its moons and twilight, its talismans and bells, mysticism itself has returned and brought with its seven devils worse than itself. But the scientific coincidence is even more strict and close. It affects not only the general question of miracles, but the particular question of possession. This is the very last element in the Christian story that would ever have been selected by the enlightened Christian topologist. Gladstone would defend it, but he would not go out of his way to dwell on it. It is an excellent working model of what I mean by finding an unexpected support and finding it in an unexpected quarter. It is not the illogical but psychological study that has brought us back into this dark underworld of the soul, where even identity seems to dissolve or divide, and men are not even themselves. I do not say that psychologists admit the discovery of demoniacs, and if they did they would doubtless call them something else, such as demonomaniacs, but they admit things which seem almost as near to a new supernaturalism and things quite as incredible to the old rationalism. Dual personality is not so very far from diabolic possession, and if the dogma of subconsciousness allows of agnosticism, the agnosticism cuts both ways. A man cannot say there is a part of him of which he is quite unconscious, and only conscious that it is not in contact with the unknown. He cannot say that there is a sealed chamber or cellar under his house, of which he knows nothing whatever, but that he is quite certain that he cannot have an underground passage leading anywhere else in the world. He cannot say he knows nothing whatever about its size or shape or appearance, except that it certainly does not contain a relic of the finger-joint of St. Catherine of Alexandria, or that it certainly is not haunted by the ghost of King Herod Agrippa. If there is any sort of legend or tradition or plausible probability which says that it is, he cannot call a thing impossible where he is not only ignorant but even unconscious. It comes back therefore to the same reality, that the old compact cosmos depended on a compact consciousness. If we are dealing with unknown quantities, we cannot deny their connection with other unknown quantities. If we have a self on which I can say nothing, how can I even say that it is my own self? How can I even say that I always had it or that it did not come from somewhere else? It is clear that we are in very deep waters, whether or no we have rushed down a steep place to fall into them. It will be noted that what we really lack here is not the supernatural but only the healthy supernatural. It is not the miracle but only the miracle of healing. I warmly sympathize with those who think most of this rather morbid and nearer the diabolic than the divine. But to call a thing diabolic is hardly an argument against the existence of diabolism. It is still more clearly the case where we go outside the sphere of science into its penumbra in literature and conversation. There is a mass of fiction and fashionable talk of which it may truly be said that what we miss in it is not demons but the power to cast them out. It combines the occult with the obscene, the sensuality of materialism with the insanity of spiritualism. In the story of Godera we have left out nothing except the Redeemer. We have kept the devils and the swine. In other words we have not found Saint George but we have found the dragon. We have found in the desert, as I have said, the bones of the monster we did not believe in, more plainly than the footprints of the hero we did. We have found them not because we expected to find them, for our progressive minds look to the promise of something much brighter and even better. Not because we wanted to find them, or our modern mood as well as our human nature, is entirely in favor of more amiable and reassuring things. Not because we thought it even possible to find them, for we really thought it impossible so far as we ever thought of it at all. We have found them because they are there and we are bound to come on them even by falling over them. It is Huxley's method that has upset Huxley's conclusion. As I have said, that conclusion itself is completely reversed. What he thought indisputable is disputed and what he thought impossible is possible. Instead of Christian morals surviving in the form of humanitarian morals, Christian demonology has survived in the form of heathen demonology. But it has not survived by scholarly traditionalism in the style of Gladstone, but rather by obstinate objective curiosity according to the advice of Huxley. We in the West have followed our reason as far as it would go, and our reason has led us to the things that nearly all the rationalists would have thought wildly irrational. Science was supposed to bully us into being rationalists, but it is now supposed to be bullying us into being irrationalists. The science of Einstein might rather be called, following our unreason as far as it will go, seeing whether the brain will crack under the conception that space is curved or that parallel straight lines always meet. And the science of Freud would make it essentially impossible to say how far our reason or unreason does go, or where it stops. For if a man is ignorant of his other self, how can he possibly know that the other self is ignorant? He can no longer say with pride that at least he knows, he knows nothing. That is exactly what he does not know. The floor has fallen out of his mind, and the abyss below may contain subconscious certainties as well as subconscious doubts. He is too ignorant, even too ignore, and he must confess himself an agnostic about whether he is an agnostic. That is the coil or tangle at least, which the dragon has reached, even in the scientific regions of the West. I only describe the tangle. I do not delight in it. Like most people with a taste for Catholic tradition, I am too much of a rationalist for that, for Catholics are almost the only people now defending reason. But I am not talking of the true relations of reason and mystery, but of the historical fact that mystery has invaded the peculiar realms of reason, especially the European realms of the motor and the telephone. When we have a man, like Mr. William Archer, lecturing mystically on dreams and psychoanalysis, and saying it is clear that God did not make a man a reasonable creature, those acquainted with the traditions and distinguished record of that dry and capable Scott will consider the fact a prodigy. I confess it never occurred to me that Mr. Archer was of such stuff as dreams are made of, and if he is becoming a mystic in his old age, I use the phrase in a mystical and merely relative sense, we may take it that the occult oriental flood is rising fast and reaching places that are not only high but dry. But the change is much more apparent to a man who has chance to stray into those orient hills where those occult streams have always risen, and especially in this land that lies between Asia, where the occult is almost the obvious, and Europe, where it is always returning with a fresher and younger vigor. The truth becomes strangely luminous in this wilderness between two worlds where the rocks stand out stark like the very bones of the dragon. As I went down that sloping wall or shoulder of the world from the holy city on the mountain to the buried cities of the plain, I seemed to see more and more clearly all this western evolution of eastern mystery. And how on this one high place, as on a pivot, the whole purpose of mankind had swerved. I took up again the train of thought which I had trailed through the desert, as described in the last chapter, about the gods of Asia and the ancient dispensation, and I found it led me along these hills to a sort of vista or vision of the new dispensation and of Christendom. Considered objectively and from the outside, the story is something such as already been loosely outlined. The emergence in this immemorial and mysterious land of what was undoubtedly, when thus considered, one tribe among many tribes worshipping one god among many gods, but it is quite as much an evident external fact that the god has become god, capital G. Still stated objectively, the story is that the tribe having this religion produced a new prophet, claiming to be more than a prophet. The old religion killed the new prophet, but the new prophet killed the old religion. He died to destroy it, and it died in destroying him. Now it may be reaffirmed equally realistically that there was nothing normal about the case or its consequences. The things that took part in the tragedy have never been the same since, and have never been like anything else in the world. The church is not like other religions. Its very crimes were unique. The Jews are not like other races. They remain as unique to everybody else as they are to themselves. The Roman Empire did not pass like other empires. It did not perish like Babylon and Assyria. It went through a most extraordinary remorse, amounting to madness and resuscitation into sanity, which is equally strange in history, whether it seems as ghastly as a galvanized corpse or as glorious as a god risen from the dead. The very land and city are not like other lands and cities. The concentration and conflict in Jerusalem today, whether we regard them as reconquest by Christendom or a conspiracy of Jews or a part of the lingering quarrel with Muslims, are alike, the effect of forces gathered and loosened in that one mysterious moment in the history of the city. They equally proclaim the paradox of its insignificance and its importance. Above all, the Prophet was not and is not like other Prophets, and the proof of it is to be found not primarily among those who believe in him, but among those who do not. He is not dead, even where he is denied. What is the use of a modern man saying that Christ is only a thing like Attis or Mithras, when the next moment he is reproaching Christianity for not following Christ? He does not suddenly lose his temper and talk about our most unmythraeic conduct, as he does very justly as a rule about our most un-Christian conduct. We do not find a group of ardent young agnostics in the middle of a great war tried as traitors for their extravagant interpretation of remarks attributed to Attis. It is improbable that Tolstoy wrote a book to prove that all modern ills could be cured by literal obedience to the orders of Adonis. We do not find wild Bolshevists calling themselves Mithraic Socialists, as many of them call themselves Christian Socialists. Leaving orthodoxy and even sanity entirely on one side, the very heresies and insanities of our time prove that, after nearly two thousand years, the issue is still living, and the name is quite literally one to conjure with. Let the critics try to conjure with any of the other names. In the real centers of modern inquiry and mental activity they will not move even a mystic with the name of Mithras, as they will move a materialist with the name of Jesus. There are men who deny God and accept Christ, but this lingering yet living power in the legend, even for those to whom it is little more than a legend, has another relevancy to the particular point here. The texts of Nazareth, merely humanly considered, has thus become a hero of humanitarianism, even the eighteenth-century deists in denying his divinity generally took pains to exalt his humanity. Of the nineteenth-century revolutionists it is really an understatement to say that they exalted him as a man, for indeed they rather exalted him as a super-man. That is to say, many of them represented him as a man preaching a decisively superior and ever-strange morality, not only in advance of his age, but practically in advance of our age. They made of his mystical councils of perfection a sort of socialism or pacifism or communism, which they themselves still see rather as something that ought to be, or that will be, the extreme limit of universal love. I am not discussing here whether they are right or not. I say they have in fact found in the same figure a type of humanitarianism and the care for human happiness. Everyone knows the striking and sometimes staggering utterances that do really support and illustrate this side of the teaching. Modern idealists are naturally moved by such things as the intensely poetic paradox about the lilies of the field, which for them has a joy in life and living things like that of Shelley or Whitman, combined with a return to simplicity beyond that of Tolstoy or Thoreau. Indeed I rather wonder that those whose merely historic or humanistic view of the case would allow of such criticism without incongruity have not made some study of the purely poetical or rhetorical structure of such passages. Certainly there are few finer examples of the swift architecture of style than that single fragment about the flowers. The almost idle opening of a chance reference to a wild flower, the idle unfolding of the small purple blossom into pavilions and palaces and the great names of the national history, and then with a turn of the hand like a gesture of scorn, the change to the grass that today is and tomorrow is cast into the oven. One follows as so often in the Gospels the how much more, which is like a celestial flight of stairs, a ladder of imaginative logic. Indeed this a fortiori and this power of thinking on three levels is, I may remark incidentally, a thing very much needed in modern discussion. Many minds apparently cannot stretch to three dimensions or to thinking that a cube can go beyond a surface as the surface goes beyond a line. For instance, that the citizen is infinitely above all ranks and yet the soul is infinitely above the citizen. But we are only concerned at the moment with the sides of this many-sided mystery which happens to be really in sympathy with the modern mood. Judged even by our modern tests of emancipated art or ideal economics, it is admitted that Christ understood all that is rather crudely embodied in socialism or the simple life. I purposely insist first on this optimistic, I might almost say this pantheistic or even this pagan aspect of the Christian Gospels. For it is only when we understand that Christ, considered merely as a prophet, can be and is a popular leader in the love of natural things, that we can feel that tremendous and tragic energy of his testimony to an ugly reality, the existence of unnatural things. Instead of taking a text as I have done, taken a whole gospel and read it steadily and honestly and straight through at a sitting, you will certainly have one impression, whether of a myth or of a man. It is that the exorcist towers above the poet and even the prophet, that the story between Cana and Calvary is one long war with demons. He understood better than a hundred poets the beauty of the flowers of the battlefield, but he came out to battle. And if most of his words mean anything, they do mean that there is at our very feet, like a chasm concealed among the flowers, an unfathomable evil. In short, I would hear only hint delicately that perhaps the mind, which admittedly knew much of what we think we know about ethics and economics, knew a little more than we are beginning to know about psychology and psychic phenomena. I remember reading, not without amusement, a severe and trenchant article in the Hibbert Journal in which Christ's admission of demonology was alone thought enough to dispose of his divinity. The one sentence of the article which I cherish in my memory, through all the changing years, ran thus. If he was God, he knew there was no such thing as diabolical possession. It did not seem to strike the Hibbert critic that this line of criticism raises the question not of whether Christ is God, but of whether the critic in the Hibbert Journal is God. About that mystery as about the other I am for the moment agnostic, but I should have thought that the meditations of omniscience on the problem of evil might be allowed, even by an agnostic, to be a little difficult to discover. Of Christ in the Gospels and in modern life I will merely for the moment say this, and if he was God, as the critic put it, it seems possible that he knew the next discovery in science as well as the last, not to mention what is more common in rationalistic culture the last but three. And what will be the next discovery in psychological science nobody can imagine, and we can only say that if it reveals demons and their name is Legion we can hardly be much surprised now. But at any rate the days are over of omniscience like that of the Hibbert critic, who knows exactly what he would know if he were God Almighty. What is pain? What is evil? What did they mean by devils? What do we mean by madness? The rising generation when asked by a venerable Victorian critic and catechist, what does God know, will hardly think it unreasonably flip into answer, God knows. There was something already suggested about the steep scenery through which I went, as I thought about these things, a sense of silent catastrophe and fundamental cleavage in the deep divisions of the cliffs and crags. They were all the more profoundly moving because my sense of them was almost as subconscious as the subconsciousness about which I was reflecting. I had fallen again into the old habit of forgetting where I was going and seeing things with one eye off in a blind abstraction. I awoke from a sort of trance of absent-mindedness in a landscape that might well awaken anybody. It might awaken a man sleeping, but he would think it was still a nightmare. It might wake the dead, but they would probably think they were in hell. Halfway down the slope the hills had taken on a certain pallor which had about it, something primitive, as if the colors were not yet created. There was only a kind of cold and warm blue in the level skies which contrasted with wild skyline. Perhaps we are accustomed to the contrary condition of the clouds moving and mutable and the hills solid and serene, but anyhow there seemed something of the making of a new world about the quiet of the skies and the cold convulsion of the landscape. But if it was between chaos and creation it was creation by God, or at least by the gods, something with an aim in its anarchy. It was very different in the final stage of the descent where my mind woke up from its meditations. One can only say that the whole landscape was like a leper. It was of wasting white and silver and gray, with mirrored dots of decadent vegetation like the green spots of a plague. In shape it not only rose into horns and crests like waves or clouds, but I believe it actually alters like waves or clouds visibly but with a lonesome slowness. The swamp is alive and I found again a certain advantage in forgetfulness, for I saw all this incredible country before I even remembered its name or the ancient tradition about its nature. Then even the green plague spots failed and everything seemed to fall away into a universal blank under the staring sun as I came in the great spaces of the circle of a lifeless sea into the silence of Sodom and Gomorrah. For these are the foundations of a fallen world and a sea below the seas on which men sail. Seas move like clouds and fishes float like birds above the level of the sunken land, and it is here that tradition has laid the tragedy of the mighty perversion of the imagination of man, the monstrous birth and death of abominable things. I say such things in no mood of spiritual pride. Such things are hideous, not because they are distant, but because they are near to us, in all our brains, certainly in mine, were buried things as bad as any buried under that bitter sea. And if he did not come to do battle with them even in the darkness of the brain of man, I know not why he came. Certainly it was not only to talk about flowers or to talk about socialism. The more truly we can see life as a fairy tale, the more clearly the tale resolves itself into a war with the dragon, who is wasting fairy land. I will not enter on the theology behind the symbol, but I am sure it was of this that all the symbols were symbolic. I remembered distinguished men among the liberal theologians who found it more difficult to believe in one devil than in many. They admitted in the New Testament an attestation to evil spirits, but not to a general enemy of mankind. As some are said to want the drama of Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark, they would have the drama of hell without the Prince of Darkness. I say nothing of these things save that the language of the Gospel seems to me to go much more singly to a single issue. The voice that is heard there has such authority as speaks to an army, and the highest note of it is victory rather than peace. When the apostles were first sent forth with their faces to the four corners of the earth and turned again to acclaim their master, he did not say in that hour of triumph, all are aspects of one harmonious whole, or the universe evolves through progress to perfection, or all things find their end in Nirvana, or the dewdrop slips into the shining sea. He looked up and said, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven, and I looked up, and saw in the long jagged lines of road and rock and cleft, something of the swiftness of such a thunderbolt. What I saw seemed not so much a scene as an act, as when abruptly Michael barred the passage of the Lord of Pride, below me all the empire of evil was splashed and scattered upon the plain like a wine-cup shattered into a star. Sodom lay like Satan, flat upon the floor of the world, and far away and aloft, faint with height and distance small but still visible, stood up the spire of the ascension, like the sword of the archangel, lifted in salute after a stroke. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information, or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org, the new Jerusalem, by G.K. Chesterton. CHAPTER X The Endless Empire One of the adventures of travel consists not so much in finding that popular sayings are false, as that they mean more than they say. We cannot appreciate the full force of the phrase until we have seen the fact. We make a picture of the things we do not know out of the things we know, and suppose the travelers tale to mean no more abroad than it would at home. If a man acquainted only with English churches is told about certain French churches that they are much frequented, he makes an English picture. He imagines a definite, dense crowd of people in their best clothes going all together at eleven o'clock, and all coming back together to lunch. He does not picture the peculiar impression he would gain on the spot, of chance people going in and out of the church all day, sometimes for quite short periods, as if it were a sort of sacred inn. Or suppose a man knowing only English beer shops hears for the first time of a German beer garden. He probably does not imagine the slow ritual of the place. He does not know that unless the drinker positively slams down the top of his beer mug with a resounding noise and a decisive gesture, beer will go on flowing into it as from a natural fountain. The drinking of beer, being regarded as the normal state of man, and the cessation of it, a decisive and even dramatic departure. I do not give this example in contempt. Heaven forbid! I have had so much to say of the inhuman side of Prussianized Germany, that I am glad to be able to pay a passing tribute to those more generous German traditions which we hope may revive and make Germany once more a part of Christendom. I merely give it as an instance of the way in which things we have all heard of, like church-going or beer-drinking in foreign lands, mean much more, and something much more special than we should infer from our own land. Now this is true of a phrase we all have heard of deserted cities or temples in the Near East. The Bedouins camp in the ruins. When I have read a hundred times that Arabs camp in some deserted town or temple near the Nile or the Euphrates, I always thought of gypsies near some place like Stonehenge. They would make their own rude shelter near the stones, perhaps sheltering behind them to light a fire, and for the rest, generations of gypsies might camp there without making much difference. The thing I saw more than once in Egypt than Palestine was much more curious. It was as if the gypsies set to work, to refurnish Stonehenge and make it a commodious residence. It was as if they sped a sort of giant umbrella over the circle of stones, and elaborately hung curtains between them so as to turn the old druid temple into a sort of patchwork pavilion. In one sense there is much more vandalism, and in another sense much more practicality. But it is a practicality that always stops short of the true creative independence of going off and building a house of their own. That is the attitude of the Arab, and it runs through all his history. Noble as is his masterpiece of the Mosque of Omar. There is something about it of that patchwork pavilion. It was based on Christian work. It was built with fragments. It was content with things that fastidious architects call fictions or even shams. I frequently saw old ruined houses, of which there only remained two walls of stone, to which the nomads had added two walls of canvas, making an exact Cuban form with the most startling incongruity in color. He needs the form and does not mind the incongruity. Nor does he mind the fact that somebody else has done the solid part, and he has only done the ramshackle part. You can say that he is nobly superior to jealousy, or that he is without artistic ambition, or that he is too much of a nomad to mind living half in somebody else's house and half in his own. The real quality is probably too subtle for any simple praise or blame. We can only say that there is in the Wandering Moslem a curious kind of limited common sense, which might even be called a short-sighted common sense. But however we define it, that is what can really be traced through Arab conquests and Arab culture in all this ingenuity and insufficiency. That is the note of these nomads in all the things in which they have succeeded and failed. In that sense they are constructive, and in that sense unconstructive. In that sense artistic, and in that sense inartistic. In that sense practical, and in that sense unpractical. In that sense cunning, and in that sense innocent. The curtains they would hang round Stonehenge might be of beautifully selected colors. The banners they waved from Stonehenge might be defended with glorious courage and enthusiasm. The prayers they recited in Stonehenge might be essentially worthy of human dignity, and certainly a great improvement on its older associations of human sacrifice. All this is true of Islam, and the idolatries and negations are often replaced. But they would not have built Stonehenge. They would scarcely, so to speak, have trouble to lift a stone of Stonehenge. They would not have built Stonehenge. How much less Salisbury or Glastonbury or Lincoln? That is the element about the Arab influence which makes it after its ages of supremacy and in a sense of success remain in a subtle manner superficial. When a man first sees the eastern deserts he sees this influence as I first described it. Very present and powerful, almost omnipresent and omnipotent. But I fancy that to me and to others it is partly striking only because it is strange. Islam is so different to Christendom that to see it at all is at first like entering a new world. But in my own case, at any rate, as the strange colors became more customary, and especially as I saw more of the established seats of history, the seats and the framework of the different states, I became conscious of something else. It was something underneath, undistroyed, and even in a sense unaltered. It was something neither Muslim nor modern, not merely oriental, and yet very different from the new occidental nations from which I came. For a long time I could not put a name on this historical atmosphere. Then one day, standing in one of the Greek churches, one of those houses full of gold, hard, highly colored pictures, I fancied it came to me. It was the Empire, and certainly not the raid of Asiatic bandits we call the Turkish Empire. The thing which had caught my eye in that colored interior was the carving of a two-headed eagle, and such a position as to make it almost as symbolic as a cross. Everyone, of course, has heard of the situation which this might well suggest, the suggestion that the Russian Church was far too much of an established church, and the white czar enroached upon the white Christ. But as a fact, the eagle I saw was not borrowed from the Russian Empire. It would be truer to say that the Empire was borrowed from the eagle. The double eagle is the ancient emblem of the double Empire of Rome and of Byzantium, the one head looking to the west and the other to the east, as if it spread its wings from the sunrise to the sunset. Unless I am mistaken, it was only associated with Russia, as late as Peter the Great, though it had been the badge of Austria as the representative of the Holy Roman Empire. And what I felt brooding over that shrine and that landscape was something older, not only then Turkey or Russia, but then Austria itself. I began to understand a sort of evening light that lies over Palestine and Syria, a sense of smooth ruts of custom, such as are said to give a dignity to the civilization of China. I even understood a sort of sleepiness about the splendid and handsome Orthodox priests moving fully robed about the streets. They were not aristocrats, but officials, still moving with the mighty routine of some far off official system. Insofar as the eagle was an emblem not of such imperial peace, but of distant imperial wars, it was of wars that we in the west have hardly heard of. It was the emblem of official ovations, when Heraclius rode homewards from the route of Ispahan, with the captives dragged behind him and the eagles in the van. That is the rigid reality that still underlay the light mastery of the Arab rider. That is what a man sees in the patchwork pavilion, when he grows used to the colored canvas and looks at the walls of stone. This also was far too great a thing for facile praise or blame, a vast bureaucracy busy and yet intensely dignified, the most civilized thing ruling many other civilizations. It was an endless end of the world, forever repeating its rich finality. And I myself was still walking in that long evening of the earth, and Caesar, my lord, was at Byzantium. But it is necessary to remember next that this empire was not always at its evening. Byzantium was not always Byzantine, nor was the seat of that power always in the city of Constantine, which was primarily a mere outpost of the city of Caesar. We must remember Rome as well as Byzantium, as indeed nobody would remember Byzantium if it were not for Rome. The more I saw of a hundred little things, the more my mind revolved around that original idea, which may be called the Mediterranean, and the fact that it became two empires but remained one civilization, just as it had become two churches but remained one religion. In this little world there is a story attached to every word, and never more than when it is the wrong word. For instance, we may say that in certain cases the word Roman actually means Greek. The Greek patriarch is sometimes called the Roman patriarch, while the real Roman patriarch, who actually comes from Rome, is only called the Latin patriarch, as if he came from any little town in Latium. The truth behind this confusion is the truth about five hundred very vital years, which are concealed even from cultivated Englishmen by two vague falsehoods. The notion that the Roman empire was merely decadent, and the notion that the Middle Ages were merely dark, as a fact even the Dark Ages were not merely dark, and even the Byzantine empire was not merely Byzantine. It seems a little unfair that we should take the very title of decay from that Christian city, for surely it was yet more stiff and sterile when it had become a Muslim city. I am not so exacting as to ask anyone to popularize such a word as Constantinopolitan, but it would surely be a better word for stiffness and sterility to call it Stambulish. But for the Muslims and other men of the Near East, what counted about Byzantium was that it still inherited the huge weight of the name of Rome. Rome had come east and reared against them this Roman city, and though a priest or a soldier who came out of it might be speaking as a Greek, he was ruling as a Roman. Its critics in these days of criticism may regard it as a corrupt civilization, but its enemies in the day of battle only regarded it as civilization. Saladin, the greatest of the Saracens, did not call Greek bishops degenerate dreamers or dingy outcasts. He called them with sounder historical instinct, the monks of the imperial race. The survival of the word merely means that even when the imperial city fell behind them, they did not surrender their claim to defy all Asia in the name of the Christian empire. That is but one example out of twenty. But that is why, in this distant place to this day, the Greeks who are separated from the Sea of Rome sometimes bear the strange name of the Romans. Now that civilization is our civilization, and we never had any other. We have not inherited a Teutonic culture any more than a Druid culture, not half so much. The people who say that parliaments or pictures or gardens or roads or universities were made by the Teutonic race from the north can be disposed of by the simple question. Why did not the Teutonic race make them in the north? Why was not the Parthian originally built in the neighborhood of Potsdam? Or did ten handset towns compete to be the birthplace of Homer? Perhaps they do by this time, but their local illusion is no longer largely shared. Anyhow it seems strange that the roads of the Romans should be due to the inspiration of the Teutons, and that the parliaments should begin in Spain because they came from Germany. If I look about in these parts for a local emblem like that of the eagle, I might very well find it in the lion. The lion is common enough, of course, in Christian art, both hageological and heraldic. Besides the cavern of Bethlehem, of which I shall speak presently, is the cavern of St. Jerome, where he lived with that real or legendary lion, who was drawn by the delicate humor of Carpaccio and a hundred other religious painters. That it should appear in Christian art is natural, that it should appear in Muslim art is much more singular, seeing that Muslims are in theory forbidden to carve images of living things. Some say the Persian Muslims are less particular, but whatever the explanation, two lions of highly heraldic appearance are carved over that Saracen gate, which Christians call the gate of St. Stephen, and the best judges seem to agree that, like so much of the Saracenic shell of Zion, they were partly at least copied from the shields and crests of the crusaders. And the lions graven over the gate of St. Stephen might well be the text for a whole book on the subject. For if they indicate, however indirectly, the presence of the Latins of the twelfth century, they also indicate the earlier sources, from which the Latin life had itself been drawn. The two lions are pacing, peasant as the heralds would say, in two opposite directions, almost as if prowling to and fro. And this also might well be symbolic, as well as heraldic. For if the crusaders brought the lions southward, in spite of the conventional fancy of Muslim decoration, it was only because the Romans had previously brought the lion northward to the cold seas and the savage forests. The image of the lion came from north to south, only because the idea of the lion had long ago come from south to north. The Christian had a symbolic lion he had never seen, and the Muslim had a real lion that he refused to draw. For we could deduce from the case of this single creature the fact that all our civilizations came from the Mediterranean and the folly of pretending that it came from the North Sea. Those two heraldic shapes over the gate may be borrowed from the Norman or Angevine shield, now quartered in the royal arms of England. They may have been copied directly or indirectly from that great Angevine king of England, whose title predated him with the heart of a lion. They may have in some far-off fashion the same ancestry as the boast or jest of our own comic papers when they talk about the British lion. But why are there lions, though of French or feudal origin, on the flag of England? They might as well be camels or crocodiles for all the apparent connection with England or with France. Why was an English king described as having the heart of a lion any more than of a tiger? Why do your patriotic cartoons threaten the world with the wrath of the British lion? It is really a strange as if they warned against stimulating the rage of the British rhinoceros. Why did not the French and English princes find in the wild boars that were the objects of their hunting, the subjects of their heraldry? If the Normans were really the Northmen, the sea wolves of Scandinavian piracy, why did they not display three wolves on their shields? Why has not John Bull been content with the English Bull or the English Bull dog? The answer might be put somewhat defiantly by saying that the very name of John Bull is foreign. The surname comes through France from Rome, and the Christian name comes through Rome from Palestine. If there had really been any justification for the Teutonic generalization, we should expect the surname to be Ox and not Bull, and we should expect the hero standing as God Father to be Odin or Siegfried, and not the prophet who lived on locusts in the wilderness of Palestine, or the mystic whom used with his burning eyes on the blue seas around Patmos. If our national hero is John Bull and not Olaf the Ox, it is ultimately because that blue sea has run like a blue thread through all the tapestries of our traditions. Or in other words, because our culture, like that of France or Flanders, came originally from the Mediterranean. And if this is true of our use of the word Bull, it is obviously even truer of our use of the word lion. The latter emblem is enough to show that the culture came not only from the Mediterranean but from the southern, as well as the northern side of the Mediterranean. In other words, the Roman Empire ran all round the great inland sea, the very name of which meant not merely the sea in the middle of the land, but more especially the sea in the middle of all the lands that mattered most to civilization. One of these, and the one that in the long run has mattered most of all, was Palestine. In this lies the deepest difference between a man like Richard the Lionheart and any of the countless modern English soldiers in Palestine, who have been quite as lionhearted as he. His superiority was not moral but intellectual. It consisted in knowing where he was and why he was there. It arose from the fact that in his time there remained a sort of memory of the Roman Empire, which some would have reestablished as a holy Roman Empire. Christendom was still almost one commonwealth, and it seemed to Richard quite natural to go from one edge of it that happened to be called England to the opposite edge of it that happened to be called Palestine. We may think him right or wrong in the particular quarrel. We may think him innocent or unscrupulous in his incidental methods. But there is next to no doubt whatever that he did regard himself not merely as conquering but as reconquering a realm. He was not like a man attacking total strangers on a hitherto undiscovered island. He was not opening up a new country or giving his name to a new continent, and he could boast none of those ideals of imperial innovation which inspire the more enlightened pioneers who exterminate tribes or extinguish republics for the sake of a gold mine or an oil field. Some day if our modern educational system is further expanded and enforced, the whole of the past of Palestine may be entirely forgotten, and a traveler in happier days may have all the fresher sentiments of one stepping anew and nameless soil. Disregarding any dim and lingering legends among the natives, he may then have the honor of calling Sinai by the name of Mount Higgins or marking in a new map the site of Bethlehem with the name of Brownsville. But King Richard, adventurous as he was, could not experience the full freshness of this sort of adventure. He was not riding into Asia, thus romantically and at random. Indeed, he was not riding into Asia at all. He was riding into Europa Irredenta. But that is to anticipate what happened later and must be considered later. I am primarily speaking of the empire as a pagan and political matter, and it is easy to see what was the meaning of the crusade on the merely pagan and political side. In one sentence it meant that Rome had to recover what Byzantium could not keep. But something further had happened, as affecting Rome than anything that could be understood by a man standing as I have imagined myself standing in the official arena of Byzantium. When I have said that the Byzantium civilization seemed still to be raining, I am at a curious impression of that in these eastern provinces, though the empire had been more defeated, it had been less disturbed. There is a greater clarity in that ancient air and fewer clouds of real revolution and novelty have come between them and their ancient sun. This may seem an enigma and a paradox, seeing that here a foreign religion has successfully fought and ruled. But indeed the enigma is also the explanation. In the East the continuity of culture has only been interrupted by negative things that Islam has done. In the West it has been interrupted by positive things that Christendom itself has done. In the West the past of Christendom has its perspective blocked up by its own creations. In the East it is a true perspective of interminable corridors, with round Byzantine arches and proud Byzantine pillars. That I inclined to fancy is the real difference that a man come from the west of Europe feels in the east of Europe. It is a gap or void. It is the absence of the grotesque energy of Gothic, the absence of the experiments of parliament and popular representation, the absence of medieval chivalry, the absence of modern nationality. In the East the civilization lived on, or if you will, lingered on. In the West it died and was reborn. But for a long time it should be remembered it must have seemed to the East merely that it died. The realms of Rome had disappeared in clouds of barbaric war, while the realms of Byzantium were still golden and gorgeous in the sun. The men of the East did not realize that their splendor was stiffening and growing sterile, and even the early successes of Islam may not have revealed to them that their rule was not only stiff but brittle. It was something else that was destined to reveal it. The Crusades meant many things, but in this manner they meant the one thing which was like a word carried to them on the great West wind, and the word was like that of an old Irish song. The West is awake. They heard in the distance the cries of unknown crowds and felt the earth shaking with the march of mobs, and behind them came the trampling of horses and the noises of harness and of horns of war, new kings calling out commands and hosts of young men, full of hope, crying out in the old Roman tongue. Id deus fault, Rome was risen from the dead. Almost any traveler could select out of the countless things that he has looked at the few things that he has seen. I mean the things that come to him with a curious clearness so that he actually sees them to be what he knows them to be. I might also say that he can believe in them, though he has seen them. There can be no rule about this realization. It seems to come in the most random fashion, and the man to whom it comes can only speak for himself without any attempt at a critical comparison with others. In this sense I may say that the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem contains something impossible to describe, yet driving me beyond expression to a desperate attempt at description. The Churches enter through a door so small that it might fairly be called a hole, in which many have seen and I think truly a symbol of some idea of humility. It is also said that the wall was pierced in this way to prevent the appearance of a camel during divine service. But even that explanation would only repeat the same suggestion through the parable of the needle's eye. Personally I should guess that insofar as the purpose was practical. It was meant to keep out much more dangerous animals than camels, as, for instance, Turks. For the whole Church has clearly been turned into a fortress. Windows are bricked up, and walls thickened in some or all of its thousand years of religious war. In the blank spaces above the little doorway hung in old times that strange mosaic of the Magi which once saved the holy place from destruction, in the strange interlude between the decline of Rome and the rise of Muhammad. For when the Persians who had destroyed Jerusalem rode out in triumph to the village of Bethlehem, they looked up and saw above the door a picture in colored stone, a picture of themselves. They were following a strange star and worshipping an unknown child, for a Christian artist following some ancient Eastern tradition containing an eternal truth had drawn the three wise men with the long robes and high head dresses of Persia. The worshippers of the sun had come westward for the worship of the star. But whether that part of the Church were bare and bald as it is now or colored with the gold and purple images of Persians, the inside of the Church would always be by comparison abruptly dark. As familiarity turns the darkness to twilight and the twilight to a gray daylight, the first impression is that of the two rows of towering pillars. They are of a dark red stone having much the appearance of a dark red marble, and they are crowned with the acanthus in the manner of the Corinthian school. They were carved and set up at the command of Constantine, and beyond them at the other end of the Church beside the Etter is the dark stairway that descends under the canopies of rock to the stable where Christ was born. Of all the things I have seen, the most convincing and as it were crushing were these red columns of Constantine. In an explanation of the sentiment there are a thousand things that want saying and cannot be said. Never have I felt so vividly the great fact of our history that the Christian religion is like a huge bridge across the boundless sea which alone connects us with the men who made the world, and yet have utterly vanished from the world. To put it curtly and very crudely, on this point alone it was possible to sympathize with a Roman and not merely to admire him. All his pagan remains are but sublime fossils, for we can never know the life that was in them. We know that here and there was a temple to Venus, or there an altar to Vesta. But who knows, or pretends to know, what he really felt about Venus or Vesta? Was a Vestal Virgin like a Christian Virgin, or something profoundly different? Was he quite serious about Venus, like a Diabolist, or merely frivolous about Venus, like a Christian? If the Spirit was different from ours, we cannot hope to understand it, and if the Spirit was like ours, the Spirit was expressed in images that no longer express it. But it is here that he and I meet, and salute, the same images in the end. In any case I can never recapture in words the waves of sympathy with strange things which went through me and that twilight of the tall pillars, like giants robed in purple, standing still and looking down into that dark hole in the ground. Here halted that imperial civilization, when it had marched in triumph through the whole world. Here, in the evening of its days, it came trailing in all its penoply, in the pathway of the three kings. For it came following not only a fallen, but a fallen star, and one that dived before them into a birthplace darker than a grave. And the Lord of the laurels, clad in his somber crimson, looked down into that darkness, and then looked up and saw that all the stars in his own sky were dead. They were deities no longer, but only a brilliant dust scattered down the vein void of Lucretius. The stars were as stale as they were strong. They would never die, for they had never lived. They were cursed with an incurable immortality that was but the extension of mortality. They were chained in the change of causation and unchangeable as the dead. There are not many men in the modern world who do not know that mood, though it was not discovered by the moderns. It was the final and seemingly fixed mood of nearly all the ancients. Only above the black hole of Bethlehem they had seen a star wandering like a lost spark, and it had done what eternal suns and planets could not do. It had disappeared. There are some who resent the presence of such purple beside the plain stable of the nativity. But it seems strange that they always rebuke it as if it were a blind vulgarity like the red plush of a parvenu, a mere insensibility to a mere incongruity. For in fact the insensibility is in the critics and not the artists. It is an insensibility not to an accidental incongruity, but to an artistic contrast. Indeed it is an insensibility of a somewhat tiresome kind, which can often be noticed in those skeptics who make a science of folklore. The mark of them is that they fail to see the importance of finding the upshot or climax of a tale even when it is a fairy tale. Since the old devotional doctors and designers were never tired of insisting on the suffering of the holy poor to the point of squalor, and simultaneously insisting on the sumptuousness of the subject kings to the point of swagger, it would really seem not entirely improbable that they may have been conscious of the contrast themselves. I confess this is an insensibility, not to say stupidity, in the skeptics and simplifiers, which I find very fatiguing. I do not mind a man not believing a story, but I confess I am bored stiff if I may be allowed the expression by a man who can tell a story without seeing the point of the story considered as a story or even considered as a lie, and a man who sees the rags and the royal purple as a clumsy inconsistency is merely missing the meaning of a deliberate design. He is like a man who should hear the story of King Coffetua and the beggarmaid and say doubtfully that it was hard to recognize it as really a marriage of convenience. A phrase which I may remark in parentheses, but not without passion, is not the French for a marriage of convenience. Any more than hors d'oeuvre is the French for out of work, but may be more rightly rendered in English as a suitable match. But nobody thought the match of the king and the beggarmaid conventionally a suitable match, and nobody would ever have thought the story were telling if it had been. It is like saying that Diogenes remaining in his tub, after the offer of Alexander, must have been unaware of the opportunities of Greek architecture, or like saying that Nebuchadnezzar, eating grass, is clearly inconsistent with court etiquette, or not to be found in any fashionable cookry book. I do not mind the learned skeptics saying it is a legend or a lie, but I weep for him when he cannot see the gist of it. I might even say the joke of it. I do not object to his rejecting the story as a tall story, but I find it deplorable when he cannot see the point or end or upshot of the tall story, the very pinnacle or spire of that sublime tower. This dull type of doubt clouds the consideration of many sacred things, as it does that of the shrine of Bethlehem. It is applied to the divine reality of Bethlehem itself, as when skeptics still snare at the littleness, the localism, the provincial particularity and obscurity of that divine origin, as if Christians could be confounded and silenced by a contrast which Christians in ten thousand hymns, songs and sermons, have incessantly shouted and proclaimed. In this capital case, of course, the same principle holds. A man may think the tale is incredible, but it would never have been told at all if it had not been incongruous. But this particular case of the lesser contrast, that between the imperial pomp and the rustic poverty of the carpenter and the shepherd, is alone enough to illustrate the strange artistic fallacy involved. If it be the point that an emperor came to worship a carpenter, it is as artistically necessary to make the emperor imperial as to make the carpenter humble. If we wish to make plain to plain people that before his shrine kings are no better than shepherds, it is necessary that the kings should have crowns, as that the shepherd should have crooks. And if modern intellectuals do not know it, it is because nobody has really been mad enough even to try to make modern intellectualism popular. Now this conception of pomp has a popular thing. This conception of concession to common human nature in color and symbol has a considerable bearing on many misunderstandings about the original enthusiasm that spread from the cave of Bethlehem over the whole Roman Empire. It is a curious fact that the moderns have mostly rebuked historic Christianity, not for being narrow but for being broad. They have rebuked it because it did prove itself the desire of all nations, because it did satisfy the cravings of many creeds, because it did prove itself to idolaters as something as magic as their idols, or did prove itself to patriots, something as lovable as their native land. In many other matters indeed, beside this popular art, we may find examples of the same illogical prejudice. Nothing betrays more curiously the bias of historians against the Christian faith, than the fact that they blame in Christians the very human indulgences they have praised in heathens. The same arts and allegories, the same phraseologies and philosophies, which appear first as proofs of heathen health turn up later as proofs of Christian corruption. It was noble of pagans to be pagan, but it was unpardonable of Christians to be paganized. They never tire of telling us of the glory that was Greece, the grandeur that was Rome, but the church was infamous because it satisfied the Greek intellect and wielded the Roman power. Now on the first example of the attempt of theology to meet the claims of philosophy, I will not hear dwell at length. I will only remark in passing that it is an utter fallacy to suggest, as for instance Mr. Wells suggests in his fascinating outline of history, that the subtleties of theology were a mere falling away from the simplicities of religion. Religion may be better simple for those who find it simple, but there are bound to be many who in any case find it subtle, among those who think about it and especially those who doubt about it. To take an example, there is no saying which the humanitarians of a broad religion more commonly offered as a model of simplicity that most mystical affirmation God is love. And there is no theological quarrel of the councils of the church, which they, especially Mr. Wells, more commonly derided as bitter and barren than at the council of Nicaea about the co-eternity of the Divine Son. Yet the subtle statement is simply a metaphysical explanation of the simple statement, and it would be quite possible even to make it a popular explanation, by saying that God could not love when there was nothing to be loved. Now the church councils were originally very popular, not to say riotous assemblies. So far from being undemocratic they were rather too democratic. The real case against them was that they passed by uproarious votes and not without violence things that had ultimately to be considered more calmly by experts. But it may reasonably be suggested, I think, that the concentration of the Greek intellect on these things did gradually pass from a popular to a more professional or official thing, and that the traces of it have finally tended to fade from the official religion of the East. It was far otherwise with a more poetical and therefore more practical religion of the West. It was far otherwise with that direct appeal to pathos and affection in the highly colored picture of the shepherd and the king. In the West the world not only prolonged its life but recovered its youth. That is the meaning of the movement I have described as the awakening of the West and the resurrection of Rome. And the whole point of that movement, as I proposed to suggest, was that it was a popular movement, that had returned with exactly that strange and simple energy that belongs to the story of Bethlehem. Not in vain had Constantine come clad in purple to look down into that dark cave at his feet, nor did the star mislead him when it seemed to end in the entrails of the earth. The men who followed him passed on, as it were, through the low and vaulted tunnel of the dark ages. But they had found the way, and the only way out of that world of death, and their journey ended in the land of the living. They came out into a world more wonderful than the eyes of men have looked on before or after, and heard the hammers of hundreds of happy craftsmen, working for once, according to their own will, and saw St. Francis walking with his halo a cloud of birds.