第50章 Footnotes:(1)

{1} The paragraph that begins "I think I can best tell you their answer..."{2} The paragraph that begins "Does a bird..."{3} The paragraphs beginning:79--"I believe, then, with this exception..."75--"Yet, observe, with exquisite accuracy..."19--"Now, in order to deal with words rightly,..."79--"Then, in art, keep the finest models..."{4} [Greek word which cannot be reproduced]

{5} Note this sentence carefully, and compare the 'Queen of the Air,' paragraph "Nothing that I ever said is more ..."{6} 2 Peter iii. 5-7.

{7} Compare the 13th Letter in 'Time and Tide.'

{8} Modern "Education" for the most part signifies giving people the faculty of thinking wrong on every conceivable subject of importance to them.

{9} Inf. xxiii. 125, 126; xix. 49. 50.

{10} Compare with paragraph "This, then, is what you have to do..."{11} See note at end of lecture. I have put it in large type, because the course of matters since it was written has made it perhaps better worth attention.

{12} Respecting the increase of rent by the deaths of the poor, for evidence of which see the preface to the Medical Officer's report to the Privy Council, just published, there are suggestions in its preface which will make some stir among us, I fancy, respecting which let me note these points following:- There are two theories on the subject of land now abroad, and in contention; both false. The first is that, by Heavenly law, there have always existed, and must continue to exist, a certain number of hereditarily sacred persons to whom the earth, air, and water of the world belong, as personal property; of which earth, air, and water, these persons may, at their pleasure, permit, or forbid, the rest of the human race to eat, to breathe, or to drink. This theory is not for many years longer tenable. The adverse theory is that a division of the land of the world among the mob of the world would immediately elevate the said mob into sacred personages; that houses would then build themselves, and corn grow of itself; and that everybody would be able to live, without doing any work for his living. This theory would also be found highly untenable in practice. It will, however, require some rough experiments and rougher catastrophes, before the generality of persons will be convinced that no law concerning anything--least of all concerning land, for either holding or dividing it, or renting it high, or renting it low--would be of the smallest ultimate use to the people, so long as the general contest for life, and for the means of life, remains one of mere brutal competition. That contest, in an unprincipled nation, will take one deadly form or another, whatever laws you make against it. For instance, it would be an entirely wholesome law for England, if it could be carried, that maximum limits should be assigned to incomes according to classes; and that every nobleman's income should be paid to him as a fixed salary or pension by the nation; and not squeezed by him in variable sums, at discretion, out of the tenants of his land. But if you could get such a law passed to-morrow, and if, which would be farther necessary, you could fix the value of the assigned incomes by making a given weight of pure bread for a given sum, a twelvemonth would not pass before another currency would have been tacitly established, and the power of accumulated wealth would have re-asserted itself in some other article, or some other imaginary sign. There is only one cure for public distress--and that is public education, directed to make men thoughtful, merciful, and just. There are, indeed, many laws conceivable which would gradually better and strengthen the national temper; but, for the most part, they are such as the national temper must be much bettered before it would bear. A nation in its youth may be helped by laws, as a weak child by backboards, but when it is old it cannot that way strengthen its crooked spine. And besides; the problem of land, at its worst, is a bye one; distribute the earth as you will, the principal question remains inexorable,--Who is to dig it? Which of us, in brief word, is to do the hard and dirty work for the rest, and for what pay? Who is to do the pleasant and clean work, and for what pay? Who is do no work, and for what pay? And there are curious moral and religious questions connected with these. How far is it lawful to suck a portion of the soul out of a great many persons, in order to put the abstracted psychical quantities together and make one very beautiful or ideal soul? If we had to deal with mere blood instead of spirit, (and the thing might literally be done--as it has been done with infants before now)--so that it were possible, by taking a certain quantity of blood from the arms of a given number of the mob, and putting it all into one person, to make a more azure-blooded gentleman of him, the thing would of course be managed; but secretly, I should conceive. But now, because it is brain and soul that we abstract, not visible blood, it can be done quite openly, and we live, we gentlemen, on delicatest prey, after the manner of weasels; that is to say, we keep a certain number of clowns digging and ditching, and generally stupefied, in order that we, being fed gratis, may have all the thinking and feeling to ourselves. Yet there is a great deal to be said for this. A highly-bred and trained English, French, Austrian, or Italian gentleman (much more a lady), is a great production,--a better production than most statues; being beautifully coloured as well as shaped, and plus all the brains; a glorious thing to look at, a wonderful thing to talk to; and you cannot have it, any more than a pyramid or a church, but by sacrifice of much contributed life. And it is, perhaps, better to build a beautiful human creature than a beautiful dome or steeple--and more delightful to look up reverently to a creature far above us, than to a wall; only the beautiful human creature will have some duties to do in return--duties of living belfry and rampart--of which presently.