• •Vol. 55. No. 2 FEBRUARY 1950 Threepence

The Mid-Century

Age, Youth and Progress

Psychology and Ethics

Rome's Holy Year

The Historical Novel

Browning, Conway and South Place Chapel

S. K. Ratcliffe

Archibald Robertson

Pro. .1. C. Hugel

A rch iba Id Robertson

Marjorie Bowen

Ernest Carr

Notes of the Month Conway Discussion Circle

Correspondence Book Reviews

South Place News Society's Activities

•

SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETYSUNDAY MORNING MEETINGS AT ELEVEN O'CLOCK

February 5.—S. K. RATCLIFFE.—"The- Literary Horizon"Soprano Solos by JEAN BROADLEY

Hymns: Nos. 67 and 87

February 12.—ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON, M.A.—"How Civilisations Decay"'Cello and Piano Solo by ADELINA LEON and ELLA IVIMEY :

Adagio and Allegro - SchumannHymns : Nos., 212 and 123

February 19.—PROFESSOR G. IV. KEETON, M.A., LL.D.—"Half a Century of Inter-

. national Relations"

Piano Solo by ELLA IvIMEY : •

Sonata No. 16 in „C Mozart „Hymns: Nos. 211 and 112

yebrunry 26.—pR. HELEN IlOSENAU-CARMI:=`Art and Propaganda"Bass Solos by G. C. DowziaN:

I Know a Bank .. Martin ShawWith Joy al Impatient Husbandman .. Haydn

Hymns: Nos. 79 and 38

March 5.—S. K. RATCLIFFE

Pianist: ELLA IvINIEY. Admission Free. Collection

SOUTH PLACE SUNDAY CONCERTS. 59th SEASON

Concerts 6.30 p.m. (Doors open 6 p.m.) Admission Is.

February 5.—Sturdy String Quartet. Stephen Shingles, James Whitehead.Haydn in G, Op. 77, No. 1; Purcell Fantasia in C minor,String Quartets; Boccherini in D, Two Cello Quintet,"L'Uccelliera"; Brahms in B flat, Op. 18, String Sextet.

11—Amadeus String Quartet. Mozart in D minor, K. 421; Beet-hoven in B flat, Op. 18, No. 6; Bartok No. 4.

19.—Robert Masters Quartet. Mozart in G minor, K. 478; Faure.in C minor, Op. 15; Dvorak in E flat, Op. 87, Piano Quartets.

26.—Kantrovich String Quartet. Jack Brymer. Beethoven in Eminor, Op. 59, No. 2; Haydn in C, Op. 74, No. 1 StringQuartets. Bliss Clarinet Quintet.

March 5.—Hunvitz String Quartet. Kyla Greenbaum. Haydn in F, Op.64, No. 6; Bernard Stevens String Quartets. Brahms in Fminor, Op. 34, Piano Quintet.

The Objects of the Society are the study and dissemination of ethical principlesand thc cultivation of a rational religious sentiment.

Any person in sympathy with these objects is cordially invited to become a Member-(minimum annual subscription 10s.), or Associate (minimum annual subscription 5s.),Associates are not eligible to vote or hold office. Enquiries should be made of theRegistrar to whom subscriptions should be paid.

OfficersHon. Treasurer: E. J. FAIRHALLHO/1. Registrar: Mrs. T. C. LINDSAY Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, W.C.1.Secretary: HECTOR HAN/TON

TheMONTHLYRECORD

Vol. 55. No. 2 February 1950 Threepence

CONTENTS PAGE

NOTES OF THE MOKTH 3

TI1E MID-CENTURY, S. K. Ratcliffe 4AGE, YOUTH AND PROGRESS, Archibald Robertson 7PSYCHOLOGY AND ETHICS, Prof. J. C. .Flugel 9

ROME'S HOLY YEAR, Archibald Robertson ..THE HISTORICAL NOVEL. Marjorie Bowen .. 13BROWNING, CONWAY AND SOUTH PLACE, Enlest CarP 15

CONWAY DISCUSSION CIRCLE 16

CORRESPONDENCE 20

BOOK REVIEW 21

SOUTH PLACE NEWS .. 21

SOCIETY'S Acrimins 23

The views expressed in this journal are not necessarily those of the Society.

Notes of the MonthA Momentous Election

There can be no difference of opinion as to the enormous importance of theissue to be determined on February 23. Our country has never before hadso nearly complete a national assize. The electorate is thirty-four millions ina population of fifty millions. These are figures which, more sharply thananything else, bring out the declining percentage of children and youngpersons under twenty-one. An immense number of young men and womenare voting for the first time. They exercise this right of citizenship asmembers of a community which provides full employment, together withsocial services not equalled in any other land. Who shall say in advancehow far the people's direct knowledge of these conditions will tell when theballot paper is marked? Certain features show this campaign to be unlikeall its predecessors. No great •party hitherto has been managed by aneminent man of business. Then there is the altered status of the platform.Until 1931 a general election was a field of display for the front-benchorators. In 1950, are there more than two or three whose platform speechesare likely to change the atmosphere and influence the result? Radio hastransformed the scene, and the nation has learnt that a single broadcast maybe decisive.

Reading the Bible

Any newspaper that starts a fresh debate on the decline of Bible-readingis assured of a vigorous response, and the News Chronicle has been rejoicing

3

over its huge daily crop of letters. If there is a new point in this outburst, itis that the clergy are shown to be in a large percentage ignorant of the Bible,and this means that they have grown slack in reading. Nonconformistpreachers, naturally enough, have always known more of. the Bible than theAnglican clergy, although they are as a class no more interested in the resultsof modern scholarship and criticism. 'In other words, they are very littleconcerned with the history and folklore of the Hebrew scriptures. Anyhow,the letters lately printed furnish proof of almost universal ignorance whichhas been spreading for a long time. Ruskin, for instance, was not yet an oldman when he complained that if he referred in a lecture to Cain and Abelhis hearers did not know what he was talking about.

An Unread Best - sellerThe Bible is the world's best-seller and, as reading, the Most neglected of

books. One obvious reason 'is underlined in many of the letters. Theauthorised publishers have done their utmost to make the Bible in Englishrepellent for the common reader—first, by crowding both text and marginwith absurd marks, and then by black binding. The Bible, one girites, is agrim book. And then, of course, there. is the lumber. One prominentNonconformist minister calls for drastic excisions. He would cut out thegeneralogies, levitical regulations, and a lot more. But he knows quite wellwhat an uproar there would be if any church council were to favour hisproposal. The dogma of verbal inspiration still rdles; its fetters hold fast.

Ethics and the 0.T.At one of the recent educational conferences a woman teacher, holding a

senior position, threw out a suggestion that made her eligible for the booby-prize, although nobody would seem to have said so. She announced that amain reason for the lowering of -moral standards among our young peoplewas neglect of the' mbral influences that cannot fait to accompany. lessonsbased on the Old'Testament! This, wc may admit, is a new note for thepresent day when so. many of the more or less orthodox are given tolamenting that the ethical teaching of the New Testament cannot bc altogethercut loose from the Old. We may well wonder what particularly is in the mindor a lady who is• anxious for the restoration of the O.T. as a manual ofethics. It could hardly be• the b6haviour of the patriarchs and their wives,the chivalry ofi those chieftains who on attaining power made away with allthcir brothers, or, say, the moSaie Conception of the punishment's fitting thecrime. Somerset Nlaugham comments in his Notebook on "the indifferencewith which the pious throughout the ages" have regarded thc wickedness inthe Bible.

The Mid-CenturyB Y

S . • IC . :RATCLIFFE

IT HAS lately been argued in some quarters that from the beginning of themodern age the middle decades of every century have been marked byimportant events of contrasted character: that is, the 'forties were disturbedand miserable and the 'fifties becoming settled and fortunate. There cannot-be much in a theory of this kind, for how should the movement of eventsbe related to the arbitrary divisions of the calendar? Nevertheless, in ournational annals the centennial middle years have been especially noteworthy.By 1450 the English kings had been forced to abandon their dreams' ofempire in France. In 1550 the Protestant Reformation was being formally

4

completed under Edward VI. In 1650 the Civil War was ended with theexecution of Charles I and the reign of Cromwell had begun. By 1750 thegreat Anglo-French struggle for empire, east and west, was preparing asthe elder Pitt began his rise to power. The conquests of Canada and Indiawere. Immediately ahead. England was moving rapidly towards the pre-dominance that was to be hers through the nineteenth century.

It is, naturally, of 1850 that we are thinking today by way of illustrationand contrast. The country had emerged from the horrors and perils of the1840s and was on the eve of that "unparalleled prosperity" in whichpoliticians gloried while the prophetic writers raged. Prince Albert and hisassociates were organising the first great Exhibition. British genius madean extraordinary display in science and literature. Darwin had alreadyannounced his theory. Tennyson and Browning, Macaulay and Mill,Carlyle and Ruskin, Dickens, Thackeray, Charlotte Bronte headed a galleryof famous names. Can we see among our contemporaries any who are inthe least likely, about the year 2050, to arouse an interest among biographerscomparable with that of today in Dickens, Ruskin:and the Brontes?

The opening of the twentieth century falls well within the memory of allliving elders. In 1900 the Boer War had not passed its disastrous first stage.From the South Place platform I. A. Hobson and others explained itssignificance with notable accuracy. It was in South Africa that the firstdamaging blows were struck against British imperial power, for the cam-paign revealed our military weakness and the inefficiency of aristocraticgovernment. Nevertheless the fabric of Empire was still unimpaired andthe Commonwealth constitutions were being completed. It is not difficultto argue that the generation before the First World War knew the climaxof British security and prestige.

The enormous changes of our half-century were still unimaginable in1900. The impact of science upon daily life was not yet revolutionary.The motor-car was in its infancy. The conquest of the air appeared to beas far off as ever. Not even a Marconi could foresee the completed miracleof broadcasting. Nor could the most prescient mind forecast the steadymovement towards social equality that has been made evident in theuniformity of dress, manners, and amusement.

As we stand now, near the midway mark of the century, we are able toperceive, if not to measure, certain results of the great overturn that havea decisive significance for ourselves. And who can doubt that of these themost momentous is the startling change in the status of Britain in termsof world power?

The nineteenth century was the age of Great Britain. All the dominantforces were working in our favour—trade and industry, transport, finance,and political activity. This island was the centre of the only effectivemodern empire. Its success was most strikingly exhibited in those far-flung possessions of which we boasted; and yet we have now to realise thattherein lay the weakness of its structure. After the two most destructivewars in all history, how could this system, with its global spread, continueto be predominant? Total war inevitably causes a transfer of world powerto the continental mass—that is. to, great populations and their vast naturalresources. Britain therefore holds a middle position between Russia- andthe United States. Her influence may still be great, and it could bebeneficent; but it can never again be decisive in Europe. The issue of warand peace, for example, no longer rests with a British Government. To thiscentral fact, indubitably, the [British mind has to be adjusted.

And so also is it with respect to empire and its•obligations. Fifty years .ago the signs of political awakening in India were few and the aims ofIndian leaders were very moderate. Not until the 1920s was a demandfor independence heard. But within ten years it became insistent, and in

5

the annals of empire there is no record to set beside that of India duringthree post-war years. India, Burma, and Ceylon have attained independence.The British example was followed by Holland and France. At the NewYear the bells of Amsterdam proclaimed the transfer of Dutch authority tothe Indonesian republic, and in the same week the French gave up in lndo-China. The West has been expelled from Asia. Between the Mediterraneanand the Pacific the only European government remaining is centred inSingapore and Hongkong. We may well ask how long these outposts ofempire are destined to survive.

lf, now, we turn to the home outlook, we need not be in any doubt con-cerning at least two lines of policy and method. The first is the consolida-tion of the power of the State. Since the first steps towards nationalinsurance this movement has been continuous. The four years of expansionsince the war are conclusive. The British people are resolved to build theWelfare State, by parliamentary action upon the basis of a nationalminimum. This is now the declared aim of all parties and, short of bank-ruptcy, there can be no reversal. Official manifestoes from the Oppositionare unmistakable. Every party appeal to the electorate assumes that thcsocial services must be maintained and improved, so that denunciations ofbureaucracy and ever-growing supervision become irrelevant. The WelfareState implies complete organisation. and that involves an army of govern-ment employees with a corresponding inspectorate. A change of govern-ment would, of course, be followed by a modified policy with an alteredtone or emphasis in administration. But that would not mean a diminutionof State authority or any departure from the essentials of the system.

And ,the second line of development is that of change in the nationalcommunity. Fifty years ago the English social system had still the appear-ance of stability. The privileged landed aristocracy had declined, but theauthority of wealth was unimpaired and the proletariat had the appearanceof a static underworld. Men and women who arc hardly in old age havewitnessed the silent revolution. The social services have wrought a socialchange. The destitute poor, as the Victorians knew them, have almostdisappeared. The schools have not yet built up a tolerably educatedmultitude, bin they open countless doors for the abler young people fromthe workers' homes who have invaded the universities and the publicservices. Equality of opportunity is fast becoming an actuality. Thegoverning class of tomorrow will be startlingly different from the class thatwas entrenched within Victorian privilege. Moreover, the emergingmultitude of wage-earners, manual and other, are not a proletariat in theold-Marxian sense. Moulded by the newer forces of the schools and tech-nical institutes, cheap books, films, radio and community recreation, theyconstitute a new bourgeoisie. If you question this, then look again at theurban populace, the Saturday sports crowd, the new suburbs and housingestates. Whether or not this multitude may be easier material for thedemagogue to work upon, for the propagandist group to capture, who isto say?

Meanwhile, we have before us the spectacle of the Welfare Stale and. itsmanifold agencies. Since the completion'of social insurance and the launch-ing of the Health Service, we see the British people as a fully protectednational community. The simplest person can draw a comparison betweenthe "independent- English folk of fifty years ago and the regulated citizensof today. Is it given to the wisest among us to estimate the probable effects,for good and evil, upon the national character, with its ancient roots in self-reliance and social freedom?

(Summary of an address delivered on Janaarj, 1)

6

Age, Youth and Progress

B Y

ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON

IN YOUTH the human animal is adventurous and questioning. The earliestways in which the child makes himself a nuisance to his elders are byplaying with fire (if he can) to his own danger and theirs, and by askingquestions which they cannot answer. Later, playing with matches is super-seded by climbing trees and making centuries at cricket; and these in turnlead on to mountaineering and wearing odd-coloured shirts; while theomnivorous curiosity of childhood prepares the way for scientific experimentand would-be solutions to the riddle of the universe.

In age the taste for adventure and for questioning is lost. We lack theenergy for adventure; and our questions have been either answered or foundunanswerable. We prefer the fireside and retrospection. As the song says,we grow "shorter in wind, as in memory long". Yet, if we have lived notaltogether foolishly, we have gained something from the adventures andquestionings of youth. We know more—if we can only put our knowledgeto use, or communicate it to others who can! As the proverb has it—Sijeunesse savait, si vieillesse pouvait.

This tension between the physical and mental energy of youth and thesettled inertia of age is one of the standing contradictions of human society.The majority of societies have overcome it without undue difficulty. Theconditions of their existence have been static: their natural environment andtheir means of coping with it alter very slowly—too slowly, as a rule, tomake a difference in a single lifetime. Hence in the majority of societies—the savage tribe, the ancient city-state, the nation-state of the early modernperiod—the elders have taken the lead and the young have accepted it asright and proper. This rule has worked, because the experience gained byone generation has remained valid for the next. Immense prestige hasalways attached to the "grand old man"—Nestor in Homer; Burghley,Franklin, Palmerston, Gladstone in history.

But in our modern world the basic assumption which underlay thisdeference paid to age as such has ceased to be true. I mean the assumptionthat the world "stayed put"—that the lessons learnt by our elders in theirprime can be transmitted without much revision to their successors. Theworld no longer "stays put" even while one generation ripens and passes on.Consequently in the modern world deference is no longer paid to age. Itscounsels are heard with impatience or not at all. And age for the mostpart, not understanding the reason, frets over the "apathy" or 'irresponsi-bility" of the young and the "collapse of moral standards," and wonderswhat the world is coming to.

The roots of the problem lie in the accelerating technical revolution whichbegan in the, eighteenth centbry and is still gathering pace. The political,religious and cultural fruits of that( revolution were not immediatelyapparent; for the connection between material conditions and their idealsuperstructure is not obvious to the naked eye. But in the course of thenineteenth century it became evident that the leisurely, picturesque politicalinstitutions of the pre-industrial age were not adapted to a society dependenton mass production for the world market; that religious dogmas evolved inthe ancient East could not be squared with the findings of modern physicaland social science; and that traditional teaching as to the "whole duty ofman" was inadequate and irrelevant to the stresses and strains which rockedthe modern world.

7

With these discoveries went an increasing tension and failure of under-

standing between successive generations. Down to 1914 the older generation

could still to a great extent live on its prestige. The youth who grew up

before the First World War still, on the whole, believed in his elders. Even

if he thought them rather out of date on such things as Biblical criticism

and economics, he gave them credit for an honesty and open-mindedness

equal to his own. To a keen young Fabian Socialist in the early years of

this century the question: -Don't you think that if there were anything in

Socialism, a man such as Mr. Balfour would have seen and adopted it before

now?" might not be a convincing reply, but it was at least a reply which

made him think. For the elder statesmen of that day were his elders and,

presumably, his betters.

And then came 1914. It turned out that our so honest, able and open-

minded elders and betters had been engaged not, as we had supposed, in

the good work of broadening freedom from precedent to precedent, but in

committing us behind our backs to military engagements which led straight

to world war. And our generation had to foot the bill. I do not think

the prestige of age has ever recovered from that shock. But we were slow

in absorbing the lesson. We could not believe all at once that the great

and good men whom we had been brought up to honour were really the

crooked set of cynics which war had revealed them to be. So we did

nothing about it; and the old men who had made the war made the peace;

and they made such a peace, and we learnt our lesson so badly, that twenty

years later another generation—the generation after ours—had to be thrown

into the furnace.

As a result, the incomprehension between age and youth is today greater

than ever before, perhaps, in the history of the world. We who grew to

maturity before 1914 have to deal with a generation which does not respect

us, which ought not to respect us, to which our very controversies are a

dead language. This applies with special force to us in the Ethical,

Rationalist and Freethought movements. Fifty years ago we thought our-

selves a very fine lot. We thanked evolution (we were too enlightened to

mention God) that we were not as our fathers had been when they excluded

Bradlaugh from the House of Commons, gaoled Foote for blasphemy and

hounded Parnell from public life. We had read our Huxley and our Renan,

many of us even our Shaw and our Webb, and we stood on their shoulders.

But that did not save us. Today we are faced by yOungsters to whom

Huxley means not Thomas Henry. but Julian and Aldous; who have never

heard of Renan: and to whom Shaw and Webb are as much warriors of

the past as Herbert Spencer and Matthew Arnold were to us.

What are we to do about it? I suggest that we learn a little humility.

Shaw says: "Every man over forty is a scoundrel.- What he was trying

to drive home was the fact that the average man's sense of social respon-

sibility diminishes with his expectation of life. If we have fifty years of

life before us. our interest in the future, other things being equal, is greater

than it becomes when we probably have not ten. That is a drawback given

in the nature of the human animal. If, then, we of the Ethical and

Rationalist movements are not enlisting the young, be sure that it is our

own stupid fault. Let us have done with the cant which excuses our failure

by pretending that the young are too.mentally immature to be desirable

recruits to our movement—that no one is a worthwhile Rationalist till he

or she is past forty. We are ourselves a refutation of such rubbish. Didwe wait till we were forty? I was a Rationalist at sixteen and a writer for

Rationalism at twenty-eight.

If we are not winning the sixteens and twenty-eights of today, it is because

we do not speak a living language to them, as the prophets of our youth

8

did to 'us. The world has not "stayed put" in the interval. Fifty years agoit was enormously important to break the social ostracism of avowed Free-thought, the political affiance of "beer and Bible:' and the bogey of hell-fire by which the established religion was defended. Today the churchesthemselves confess that they are a minority; no one "cuts" us for Free-thought, unless he is such a fool that he is not worth knowing;, and hell,except among hard-shelled Catholics, has been degraded from an eschatolo-gical dogma to a common or garden swear-word. The old Bible-smashing

. Secularism, is played out; and the "reverent agnosticisms" and other half-way houses, about which we were so earnest in our youth, are now unsale-able. The new generation is much more interested in finding jobs and homesand stopping a third world war; and rightly so.

Probably there is nothing which the Ethical and Rationalist movements cancorporately do about it. We cannot corporately take sides in politics. Butthere is much that we can do as individuals. We can be on our guard,every one of us, against that loss of interest in the future which normallycomes with age. If we are parents, we can be on terms of equal friendshipwith our children. If we are not, we can keep on such terms with anyyoung people who are willing to tolerate our society. We can rememberthat we have as much to learn from them as they from us. We can learnfrom them the sort of problems which interest them, and we can showthat we are more, not less alive to those problems through having had toface and fight our own. In that way we may justify the Rationalism thatis in us to those who may think it a dead issue.

(Suinmary of an address delivered on December 18)

Psychology and EthicsBY

PROFESSOR 1. C. FLUGEL, D.SC.

WHENI WAS a student at Oxford some forty-five years ago we used to writeessays on the relation between psychology and ethics and usually solved theproblem to our satisfaction by saying that psycholoey was a positive, ethicsa nominative, science, that is to say, psychology is concerned with describingand, in so far as it can, explaining consciousness and behaviour, withoutevaluating them in moral terms, which last is the task of ethics. In otherwords, psychology tells us how and why we behave, ethics how we oughtto behave.

But in those days the problem was relatively simple, chiefly because:(I) psychology had as yet hardly begun to deal with those aspects of mindand behaviour (e.g. our religious, social and political life) which areintimately concerned with values; (2) it had not aspired to become an appliedscience (e.g. there were no branches of educational, medical and industrialpsychology such as exert a powerful influence today).

With regard to the first of these two more recent developments, it isperhaps more particularly the incursions of psychology into the sphere ofreligion and crime which have complicated the relations between psychologyand ethics and have caused some conflict between representatives of thenew upstart science and the upholders of more traditional moral andreligious views. Ethics has always been intimately connected with religion,since religion usually claims to give supernatural sanction to our moralsystems by providing them with a metaphysical foundation. In so far aspsychology may appear to undermine this foundation it also threatens theethical values based upon it. Now, psychology (like anthropology, and the

9

physical sciences in their respective spheres) has undoubtedly weakened themetaphysical supports of religion. It shows that religious ideas result fromattempts to satisfy our aspirations and solve our mental conflict, withouttesting them in the hard field of reality; such ideas therefore—like ourindividual day-dreams and the delusions to the insane—are all too likely tobe merely subjective, in the nature of wishful thinkine, with little or nocorrespondence to "reality". Thus so far as our moral standards dependupon religion, these standards are deprived of the sure foundations uponwhich they stood; and, since it is simpler and easier to base ethics upon .supernatural sanctions than upon partly rational considerations, the wholefabric of ethics is to this extent endangered. Substitute foundations mustbe found elsewhere, and the task is not easy for the simple-minded; aswe have seen, the substitutes adopted are likely to be in the nature of crudepolitical ideologies, which in practice lead to disastrous wars and persecu-tions. Hence, however mistaken they may be, there is much excuse forthose who urge a return to religion as the only solution of our moral prob-lems and who are hostile to psycholoey for the part it has played in under-mining our religious faith.

With reeard to crime, psychology has made us uneasy by substituting ascientific study of the motives of the law-breaker, for moral indignation atthe harm he does us. We do not like to be deprived of the joy of moralindignation, we do not like to sacrifice the sadistic pleasure we experiencein inflicting punishment and we resent the explanation that the psychologistprovides of why we experience these joys, such as the suegestion that weare all criminals at heart and are therefore tempted to carry out the anti-social actions which the criminal has dared to do, and that we assuage ourguilt and. buttress our shaky morality by demanding (vicarious) punishmentby way of "example-. Here again, as with religion, psychology in someways makes the task of ethics harder, even though it promises ultimatelyto provide a surer and more "civilised" foundation.

The psychological study of delinquency is an example of applied psycho-logy and serves to remind us of the whole bearing of the latter upon therelations between psychology and ethics. Applied psychology, like anyother applied science, presupposes values. Medicine, which is largely appliedphysiology, implies health as a value and seeks the means to maintain orrestore health. Engineering, which is applied physics, implies the desirabilityof making and maintaining in order machinery to serve human purposes.Similarly, applied psychology implies that it is desirable to use the mostefficient methods of teaching, to select the best job for a given person orthe best person for a given job, to cure criminals of their anti-socialtendencies, and generally to make our mental life as healthy, pleasant andefficient as it can be. Applied psychology, like every other applied science,seeks the best "means- to a given end. It is therefore concerned with the"means", whereas ethics must in the last resort dictate the "ends".

At first sight the distinction here seems clear enough. But on closerinspection awkward problems often arise to complicate the picture. Foursuch problems may be mentioned: (I) Does the end always justify themeans, even if the latter in itself seenis evil? Such problems may arise inmany spheres, e.g. in politics. (2) The boundaries between means and endsare not permanently fixed. What is from one point of view an end mayfrom another be a means. There is in reality a whole hierarchy of values,so that the spheres of psychology and ethics are constantly shifting aceord-ing to our point of view at any moment. (3) While seeking a means,- wemay come to change our ends, e.g. a person seeking psychotherapeutic treat-ment in order to serve his ends more efficiently may in the course oftreatment find that these "ends" are neurotically determined and may in10

consequence eventually pursue a different walk or kind of life. (4) "Values"themselves are things in the mind or have at least to be appreciated by themind before they are "valued". The psychological study of values thusseems to threaten the whole existence of ethics as a separate discipline con-cerned with values. Fortunately in practice we seldom come face to facewith this ultimate problem. We are usually fairly clear at any moment asto what are our ends and what our means, and hence what falls within thesphere of ethics and psychology respectively. Nevertheless a little earlier orlater the frontier may be different. The boundaries between the twodisciplines are thus fluctuating rather than fixed—an unComfortable factperhaps for those who seek clear and permanent distinctions, but one thatwill meet us whenever we try to delimit rigidly the fields of different sciences,

for such distinctions are determined by history and convenience rather thanby any real boundaries between the fields to which these sciences make

claim.

(Summary of an address delivered on January 8)

Rome's Holy YearB Y

ARCHIBALD,ROBERTSON, M.A.

ON DECEMBER 24 Pope Pius XII, surrounded by the pomp and pageantrywhich the Catholic Church knows so well how to stage-manage, escortedby a bodyguard formed from the aristocracy of Rome, and watched byroyalties, ministers, diplomats and a concourse of fifty thousands pilgrims,ceremonially opened the Holy Door of St. Peter's and inaugurated Rome'sHoly Year.

The Holy Year was first instituted by Boniface VIII (one of the badPopes whom Dante put in hell) in the year 1300. It was at first the inten-tion that it should be celebrated every century. But Holy Years are nowproclaimed at frequent intervals at the discretion of the Vatican. The objectis to draw pilgrims to Rome from all parts of the world, to demonstratethe strength of the Catholic Church and, of course, to bring in money.Three million pilgrims, who will be rewarded by plenary indulgences, areexpected to flock to Rome in 1950. No doubt the majority of these threemillions will really believe that they are doing something worth while.that they are indeed acquiring merit and earning a total remission of pastsins by travelling to Rome. visiting four prescribed churches, and passingthrough the Holy Door. But to what extent do the organisers of the pageantbelieve it? In his broadcast message to the world on December 23 Pius XIIappealed to all, even to atheists, to return to the Catholic fold, and pleadedfor Christian unity in face of the menace of Communism in Europe andAsia. No one doubts that in this plea, at least, the Pope was in deadlyearnest. But power-politics apart, the question remains to what extent theheads of the Catholic Church (who are men of the world) at heart believe inthe.dogmas which they impose upon their flock.

Certain notorious facts give just cause for doubting the good faith ofthe Catholic hierarchy. The boosting of bogus miracles has continuedunabashed from the Dark Ages to this day. Twice a year the alleged bloodof Januarius, the patron saint of Naples, preserved in a phial in thecathedral, publicly liquefies. Periodically apparitions of the Virgin toignorant peasants in Catholic countries are recorded and publicised in theCatholic press. The Vatican is cautious about committing itself to con-

Il

temporary miracles; and so far neither the Naples liquefaction nor theLourdes and other manifestations have been elevated into infallible dogmas.But the hierarchy unquestionably permits and encourages these displays ofmass-uggestion, and a Catholic would need to be very bold indeed toquestion their miraculous character., Charles Kingsley, in his famous controversy with Newman in 1864,declared that truth for its own sake had never been a virtue with the Romanclergy. Unfortuhately Kingsley went on to attribute to Newman personallywords which he had not used, and thereby delivered himself into Newman'shands. Had Kingsley contented himself with his general proposition, itwould have been difficult to refute him. How right he was, was illustratedlong after he and Newman were dead, in the controversy between the lateG. G. Coulton and various Catholic apologists, foremost among whom wasthe late. Cardinal Gasquet, in regard to certain points of medieval history.Coulton was a great Cambridge scholar, very far from an extremist; andhis works on the life of the Middle Ages are not only eminently readablebut monunients or industry and research. Yet, because he refused to joinin the fashionable whitewashing of medieval monastic life, Gasquet and atag-rag-and-bobtail of Jesuits and other Catholic luminaries, plus theinevitable Mr. Belloc and the inevitable Mr. Arnold Lunn, joined forcesagainst "the notorious Dr. CouIton," "the bad-hearted Dr. Couhon," anddid their best to represent him as an unscholarly muck-raker. The climaxwas reached when Coulton's Catholic opponents refused his offer to reprinttheir contributions to the controversy side by side with his own, and thenreproached him with publishing only his own side of the case!

I had my own taste of Catholic controversial methods when a year agoI debated in the Cambridge Union a motion to the effect that traditionalorthodoxies were inadequate to the needs of the modern world. Before thedebate I took care to look up what the Papal Encyclicals Reruin Novarumand Quadragesimo Anno said about social problems.. Nothing can bemore explicit than the condemnation in these Encyclicals, especially inQuadragesimo Anna, of Socialism in any form—not only Communism, butalso Social Democracy. "NO one can be at the same time a sincere Catholicand a Socialist properly so called." Naturally I cited this. That did notprevent a Catholic participant in the debate, who said that he had read theEncyclical, from asserting that it condemned only Communism. The rulesof debate did not allow me to do more than advise him to re-read it!

Putting two and two together, we are forced to conclude that Catholic truthand ordinary truth are not the same thing. The case is cumulative. Thewhole authority claimed by the Catholic Church rests on the story ofChrist's commission to Peter. Yet there is no first-century or New Testa-ment evidence that Peter was bishop of Rome, nor that his fellOw-disciplestreated him as infallible, nor that his status, whatever it was, was trans-mitted to his successors. At the very start, therefore, the Catholic claimrests on a shameless piece of bluff. On the strength of this bluff the RomanChurch has piled dogma on dogma—celibacy of the clergy; indulgences;transubstantiation; auricular confession; penance; extreme unction;purgatory; the worship of saints, relics and images; and, to cap all, theinfallibility of the Pope in faith and morals. Are we to believe that on eachof these issues the hierarchy were guided by zeal for truth and by the lawsof evidence. Or were they guided by power-politics and by the desire toMagnify their own office? The first alternative is incredible. The second,iftrue, destroys the title of the Vatican and its hierarchy, not only toere- deuce in the matter of doctrine, but to any partick of moral respectwhatever. The whole thing is one big confidence trick meriting, not respect,but scorn.

This has an important bearing on the claim of the Vatican to leadershipin the present crisis of civilisation. That claim is taken seriously by manynon-Catholics, e.g. Professor Toynbee. The Times recently opened itscolumns to a long correspondence on the possibility of reunion betweenthe Churches, and concluded with a leading article in which the RomanChurch was saluted as the largest single Christian communion—"behind theiron curtain the only organised representation of the Western tradition inthought and morals--and a more effective barrier to Communism thanany other force. The Times regretted that there should be any misunder-standing between Protestants and Catholics, and ended by recommending"frank exchanges of opinion" with a view to unity, if not in doctrine, atleast in action.

All this presupposes that the Roman Catholic Church is a morallyrespectable thing. But that is just the question. Is this elaborate andpicturesque hierarchy, with its Holy Years, Holy Door opened by a holyhammer, plenary indulgences for pilgrims and all the rest of it, a thingworthy of respect in any sense? Is it even Christian in any sense whichwould have been recognised by the missionaries and martyrs of the firstcenturies? Is not the disposition to respect it a melancholy sign of themoral cowardice and softening of the brain which has overtaken our politicalas well as religious leaders in these latter days?

I say nothing against the rank and file of Catholics in humble walks oflife who are in the Church because they know no better. Most of themcannot help themselves. All honour to the exceptions who can and do!It takes•grit to get -out of the Catholic Church: I sometimes think thatex-Catholics make the best Rationalists. But when we look at the gildedhierarchy which battens on the ignorant mass and leads them by the nose,I long for the forthrightness of our Protestant ancestors. There was nomealy-mouthedness about them, no kow-towing to "the largest singleChristian communion," no prating of reunion. The Pope was Antichrist—by which our forefathers meant that he and his hierarchy were the oppositeof what they, as honest men, meant by Christian: that the Church of Romewas not Christian at all in their sense, but pagan, "the ghost of the deceasedRoman Empire," as old Hobbes put it, "sitting crowned upon the gravethereof-. Would that there were one English Protestant today to speak,not in the canting accents of The Times, but in the virile language of Crom-well and Milton, or even Robert Browning, of the unholy racket that is

• Rome's Holy Year!(Sumniary of an address given on January 15)

The Historical NovelB Y

MARJORIE BOWEN

"THE CRITICS SAY the historical novel is dead": at uncertain intervals onehears this rumour. Then a writer produces a so-called "new- kind of"historical novel" and for a while the style is fashionable, until once againthere is a vague pronouncement—from whom?—that no one must ever writelike this again.

The whole subject may seem trivial, but there is a good deal of importanceattached to what people read, and there is much to be debated on thesubject of literary criticism that the commercial press has not the space todeal with; to begin with, who are "the ethics''? There are a few pro-fessionals, men and women of proved intelligence and training, who take

13

considerable trouble with their work, but a few only. For the most partbooks are often "reviewed- by writers who have their own "coterie' toconsider; often again they are written.by hacks. The easiest form of novelis that most often praised, and for that reason. It is in the interest of thenovelist critic-journalist to keep up the prestige of the only kind of work heand his friends can produce.

This easy novel that almost anyone with some education can knock to-gether is partly autobiographical and partly what is known as "a socialdocument-: that is, some topical dilemma is introduced and discussed by agroup of dummies. To fill out the required length, repulsive and squaliddetails of physical degradation or spiritual abasement can always be found.Such a novel will have, for a short time, a "news" value and will be readilyunderstood, especially if written in the slang of the moment. Should everydevice of this "modern" novelist prove barren, he can always get out hisreference books and re-write some classic tale or legend in the idiom oftoday, tacking on to the medley some platitude about "how like our ownproblems," and he will be taken quite seriously by the critics to whom thissort of thing presents no difficulty at all, and by the public who can skimthe familiar stuff with no sort of effort.

The historical novel is not to be so casually dealt with; certainly a verygreat deal of trash has been written under this label, but that is soon detected.There are so many varieties of "historical novel" that it is impossible evento name them here, but we may remind ourselves that a large number offamous books, mostly dramas and tragedies, have been set back at least ageneration before the author's time: the examples of Hardy and Tolstoy areprominent. The earliest novels were "historical- in that they dealt with deadheroes and heroines, or episodes of the past. Modern life was reflected insatire and comedy. The genius of Walter Scott set a bad example, and thetrue growth of the historical novel in this country has been checked by thetedious imitators of this extremely successful writer: these tedious copyistshave given this "genre" a bad name.

A vast amount of work, often dull and uninteresting, goes to the writingof any kind of worthwhile historical novel, and this will be unrecognised.It is not at all likely that the book will come into the hands of a criticcompetent to judge it, and the public for such novels will always be small.Their influence, however, is likely to be good, though limited; official his-torians, with the usual notable exceptions, do not write engagingly, and acertain knowledge of history does filter down through the historical novelto people who would never have concerned themselves with it had it notbeen presented in the guise of fiction.

I do not mean that the dressed-up, affected kind of historical novel, wheresome ancient scandal is coyly or simperingly re-told, is any use to anyone.But I do think that a novel that is free of all the overwhelming issues of theimmediate moment, that is set in some period we are now able to judge im-partially, gives a scope for the creative writer and an enjoyment to theimaginative reader, far beyond the scope of a novel set strictly in our owntimes.

Here is a chance for story telling, for fantasy, for, most important of all,a search into the ideals and motives of humanity, their struggles, failures andtriumphs. It is not the "fancy dress" that attracts a sincere writer to thehistorical novel, but the fascination of discovering and revealing the why andwherefore of large events and remarkable characters.

This fascination will always be felt by sensitive and thoughtful writers,and the historical novel will not become obsolete until the art of story tellingis itself extinct.

14

Browning, Conway, and South Place Chapel

B

ERNEST CARR

A BRIEF reference in the December Record to Mr. S. K. Ratcliffe's articleon "Browning and His Early Friends" sent the present scribe in quest ofthat essay, which had appeared in the summer number of Cornhill. Itproved to be—as all who know that tireless veteran's work would expect—a brilliant and informative piece of work that has a special interest formembers of our Society, since it is largely devoted to the varying fortunesof our earliest minister, William Johnson Fox, and to the beautiful, giftedand high-minded women, Eliza and Sarah Flower: the former a musicalgenius, the latter a true poet, destined to be remembered even today, morethan a century after her death, by reason of her hymn: Nearer, my God, toThee. Though Dr. Conway's name does not occur in the article, for hedid not come to England until 1863, when both the Flower sisters were deadand Fox was nearing his long life's end, he became a close friend of RobertBrowning and learnt from him much concerning the poet's early friendshipwith all three.

Recalling these facts, and re-reading the relevant passages in Conway'slengthy but fascinating Autobiography. I found that these greatly extendedand deepened the interest aroused in a South Place veteran by Mr. Ratcliffe'snecessarily brief and more generalised sketch. Considered together, thebook and the magazine article throw a clear light on each of the charactersalready mentioned; and the book reminds us of a perilous passage in theearly history of South Place which may be new to many members.

The Flower sisters—their portraits in the library of Conway Hall wouldwarrant their being termed "the sister flowers"—had been adopted by Foxon their father's death, and as they grew up became, inevitably, notableelements at Fox's new Unitarian "chapel in South Place, Finsbury Circus",Robert Browning, who in his early youth was (in Conway's words)"precociously sceptical," met them there and in Fox's house; a close friend-ship ensued, though the elder sister was nine years his senior, and theyounger seven. Their critical discernment is shown by Mr. Ratcliffe'sremark : 'They detected in him a streak of arrogance, and thought himself-centred." Of this friendship Dr. Conway wrote: "I believe that theadvanced rationalism for which our chapel became distinguished in Mr.Fox's time was primarily due to Robert Browning. In his early youth ... heundermined the faith of Eliza's sister, Sarah." And though a long, touchingavowal by Sarah of her loss of faith follows immediately—written whenBrowning was less than sixteen—the autobiographer felt convinced thatFox's inability to answer her doubts "did away with his faith in a Biblicalrevelation," thus leading the Unitarian to a more sceptical viewpoint.

Whatever the cause may have been, Mr. Fox, during his forty years'occupation of the South Place pulpit, had developed into a fearless thinker,far in advance of the age. On his retirement the Society "vainly endeavouredto find a minister to carry on his work in the same Rationalistic spirit, andwere brought to the verge of dissolution by their last preacher". In June1863 the Committee reported: 'Now we have a comparatively emptychapel, and it would be strange, indeed, in this age of free enquiry, and inthis free church of ours; if it were not so, seeing that for the last five yearswe have had scarcely any other source of religion•opened to us but recordsof the past as contained in the Bible."•

15

The Autobiography, from which the above passage is taken, continues:"On this report a meeting was summoned, and it would have closed thechapel but for the suggestion of P. A. Taylor, M.P., that I should be heard."Having come to England as a Southerner in support of the anti-slaveryNorth ("a renegade Virginian," as he termed himself), Conway hesitated toaccept the ensuing offer of the South Place pulpit: but a•solution was found,and in Febniary 1864 he began a ministry that continued unbroken fortwenty-one years, was resumed aftcr an interval, and ended only a fewmonths before his devoted wife's death on Christmas Day, 1897.

Whether Browning's youthful scepticism so affected the beliefs of anhrdent, eager woman seven years his senior as to lead her, in turn, to helpFox in his emancipation from the Unitarian to the sheerly Ethical outlook,is a dubious question that may never be fully answered. Recalling the"arrogant streak" that she and her sister so shrewdly discerned in thebudding poet, it appears more likely that in his later friendship with Dr.Conway he instilled (perhaps unconsciously) that notion in the latter's mind.For Browning's arrogance persisted to the end. In his last book of poems,as our readers may remember, he styled himself:

"One who never turned his back, but marched breast forward:Never doubted clouds would break . . .

Held we fall to rise, are worsted to fight better,Sleep to wake."

What humble-minded, honest thinker, confronted with life's profundities,dare claim so much?

Conway Discussion CircleOn Tuesday, November 22, Mr. R. S. W. Pollard, EP., opened a discussion

on "Marriage Law Reform". He said that the Marriage Law Reform Com-mittee had been founded three years ago by lawyers who gave their services.They were tired of the lying and perjury in court, and of telling people,whose marriages had obviously ended, that they could not eet a divorce.

In 1857, after a Royal Commission, divorce courts were set up anddivorce could be obtained on the grounds of adultery, desertion or cruelty.In 1937, A. P. Herbert's Bill became law, by which divorce was granted afterthree years' desertion, cruelty, permanent insanity or five years' detention inan asylum. There were now two additions to this: (a) a marriage was nulland void on the grounds of incapacity to consummate; and (b) wilful refusalto consummate.

The Law maintained that the innocent party must come to court full of afeeling of indignation and anxious for punishment for the matrimonialoffence. Mr. Pollard thought it rational and decent for the two parties todetide between themselves the best way to obtain a divorce, yet if theydiscussed it, they were guilty of collusion and automatically barred fromobtaining one. An affidavit had to be signed stating there was no collusion.This could and did lead to abuses.

It was not possible to estimate accurately the number of people -unable toobtain divorce despite the 1937 reform Act, but Mr. Pollard thought it mightbe 100,000 or 200,000. The number was made up of those •who wereseparated with no matrimonial offence, and innocent parties who would takeno steps to divorce. Parties separated by informal or even formal legalseparation could not obtain divorce as there was no desertion. The onlygrounds were adultery, even although separated for many years, and if thematter were dismissed, collusion prevented the very thing they wanted.Neither miaht wish to commit adultery even for the- sake of becoming free.Further, even in the case of people living together for years, the innocentparty could not be compelled to take jaroceedings.16

There were 15,000 separations in 1948, and 25,000 in 1947. People whowished to get married, and could not, had the choice of celibacy or child-lessness, and many formed unions outside marriage. Sometimes the manchanged his name, and generally the woman did so, by deed poll. Hardshipand injustice often resulted from this expedient.

Although it was human nature to desire stable union, it should be possibleto end a marriage by law after a certain lapse of time. A committee in1947 suggested seven years: the Marriage Law Reform Committee thoughtthis much too long. Early in 1949 a Bill was before the House with anamendment, for which there was a deal of support, that a seven-years'separation was grounds for divorce. Unfortunately, the Speaker ruled thatthe amendment was out of order, and it was never voted on. It was hoped,however, that this matter would be raised again, and the Committee was stillworking for it. There were several other suggested reforms. It was thoughtthat if a wife showed wilful neglect of a home, the husband should have aremedy in law. Further, divorce cost over £45 at present, but if transferredto magistrates' courts, costs would be much reduced.

Essentials of Poetry

On Tuesday, November 29, Mr. Ashton Burall gave a talk on "Poetryand Mr. T. S. Eliot," illustrating his remarks by reading excerpts with perfectintonation. He first wished to 'show us the background against which hesaw Eliot, and spoke of poetry as touching a spring of emotion not

.approached by direct statement, and going beyond the region of consciousthought. Most people hedged when asked if they liked poetry; but poetrywas part of the life of human beings, and whether they were simple orcomplex there was a universality about it that touched every one. Poetryhad a function and possessed a healing quality when heard, even althoughthe subject matter was painful to us. This was realised when readingMatthew Arnold's Isolation. Every one experienced nostalgia and unhap-piness at feeling one was quite alone. Thomas Hardy's Former Beautiesshowed that pain in life could be made bearable and beautiful by art, inthis case the art of poetry.

There were two kinds of poetry, one of direct statement, and one ofimplication. It was essential not to try to assess a poem in the wrongcategory. Goldsmith's Deserted Village was good poetry but merely showedhe liked a village to be hardworking and happy; it had no deeper meaning.On the other hand Blake's The Echoing Green not only described a realvillage and approved its way of life but gave a balancing of ideas and thecycle of a perfect day.

Rhythm was verbal structure, loved too much in the Victorian era, butunder-emphasised in modern times. Rhythm put the conscious mind in acondition favourable to penetrating the unconscious mind. By his rhythmiclanguage Eliot in his Portrait of a Lady put one in the right frame of mind.Variety of rhythm suggested elasticity and pulsation of feeling, as inHerrick's To Electra. There was, however, the danger of blurring senseand sound, and Swinburne was an example of language used as mere musicalincantation.

Symbolism heightened poetic significance. Blake was continually usingit, as in The Lamb and the Tiger and in The Sick Rose, suggesting lovecorrupted by possession. Eliot was a master at producing effects by elusive-ness. It created overtones in the same way as symbolism. In The WastelandEliot by elusion released a charge of feeling which was relevant to what hehad to say. Eliot was a poet of indirect statement and of implication, andexhibited a subtle use of rhythm. His recurring theme was the emptinessof life without belief. He had taken upon 'himself the burden of experi-

17

encing the world for his generation. His integrity was complete, and if hewas accused of being complex and obscure, this could also be said of theworld. There was no easy appreciation of his poetry. Eliot himself hadsaid : "Poets of our time must be dif'ficult." He was, in the opinion ofMr. Burall, no more obscure than Milton, or Browning or Shelley. Com-plete lucidity was not the test of excellence. The world was frustrated andart could only comment. Eliot excelled in the use of symbolism, in elusion,in judgment, and by giving articulation to our frustration proved himselfto be the poct of this generation, with its despairing inability to believe.

The Problem of Jewry

On Tuesday evening, December 6, Mr. Charles Solomon talked on "TheRebirth of Israel". He said it was a matter of speculation how the new Stateof Israel would behave regarding sacred law; what civilisation it would setup; and what would be the ultimate position of Jews not in Israel. A Jewwas not an adherent of a religion, nor was he a Jew by race or nationality.It had been said that "if a people feels itself to be a nation, it is one", andso he defined a Jew as a member of a people who have a certain way of life.

Many Jews maintained they were specially chosen as a people, and had amessage for the world. However, as all Jews had different messages andwere in fact as quarrelsome as Christians, Mr. Solomon thought we wouldhave to wait until they were all united before hearing the message.

The establishment of the new State had done a remarkable thing,previously unheard of. It had made a Tule that any Jew, without discrimina-'tion, had the right to enter the country, and this was not theory, but practice.

Mr. Solomon explained that the sacred writing on the Law (Torah) neverchanged, and it was still maintained that fires -Should not be kindled on theSabbath, for example. Rabbis had much difficulty in trying to adjust suchteachings to modern conditions; fortunately social practice was ahead of thelaw. The Jewish religion differed from others inasmuch as it was a code ofconduct. It had no set of dogmas, but was founded on a concern for justice.The code consisted of 600 rules and prohibitions. It was merely a legendthat the law was brutal; for example, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for atooth" only meant that punishment must fit the crime. Capital punishmenthad once been in use, but there were now so many safeguards that it wasseldom inflicted. It needed a court of twenty-three judges in order tocondemn a man to death, and two eye-witnesses to the crime, and proof thathe had been warned beforehand of the consequences of his crime. Therabbis were against the death sentence, and in seventy years only sevenpeople had been condemned to die.

Polygamy was nowhere forbidden by Judaic law, but in practice Jewsaccepted the law of the country in which they resided. The woman wasinferior in law. She •was not allowed to sign a legal deed nor dispose ofproperty without the consent of her husband. There were no mixedmarriages. A man could divorce a woman, but the woman had no wayof freeing herself, as the law could not be altered. Though politically in-ferior, however, the woman was a force in the home, where she held supremeinfluence.

Although in deep sympathy with Israel, Mr. Solomon thought it essentialfor the Jew to remain in the country of his birth, and that he had no rightto interfere in the new State. The important point stood out, however, thata Jew was in a special position of having rights in the country of birth, andyet the option of emigrating, and though this might cast doubts on hisloyality, he did not think loyalties always conflicted. It seemed to be themission of the Jew to be scattered among nations, and perhaps he was thegrain of sand that acted as an irritant towards better work being achieved.

18

Psychkal Research

On Tuesday, December 13, Mr. Guilfoyle Williams spoke on "TheImplications of Psychical Research". He said that talking as a scientisthe was concerned with experience and experiment. Any system when testedmust correlate with reality to be believed in. Experiments of Dr. Rhineand others showed that perception could occur without any known bodilysenses, and independent of spatial limitations. It involved fore-knowledge,

, that is of a future event which could not be known by other means onpresent data. It also involved retro-cognition, i.e. knowledge of a pastevent, and showed the mind could direct an unknown force capable ofaffecting matter.

One great problem was whether there was a dualism of mind and bodyor monism. The findings of Dr. Rhine suggested the former. Mr. Williamspointed out that at some period matter had achieved such a structure that"psyche- or awareness and memory combined with it. There was no need,however, to assume a Creator or "Plan".

In opposition to mechanistic determinism, Henri Bergson, in CreativeEvolution (1911), put forward the conception of an original impulse, creativeand fulfilling itself in various directions by trial and error. Mr. Williamsdiffered from Bergson, as personality did not enter the latter's view ofevolution. The question arose whether evolution had been a semi-blindgroping towards acquiring personality. When following a type of behaviourprescribed by the place in history of a group, by instincts, conventions andtaboos, Mr. Williams pointed out one was simply a unit of a crowd. Butpersonality was accumulation of experience that differed from the routinebecause it entailed making a choice. The psyche in man had developedpersonality and it was a waste if this disappeared at death. Death meantthat the psyche could no longer associate with organism or matter. Accept-ing Rhine's work, any one of three alternatives could take place withregard to the personality : extinction, survival as separated fragments (thepsyche reverting to the units that associated with each living cell of thebody) or survival. As persons with a scientific approach it was apsyche body, or survival. As persons with a scientific approach it was aduty to seek evidence and examine the question impartially. In Mr.Williams's view there were a few cases of psychical phenomena that couldbe explained only by the survival of personality. It was only evident in afew instances and it was therefore possible that some personalities were notsufficiently coherent to survive, or else by an act of will deliberatelydisintegrated.

If the personality, or integrated psyche, survived it may not have reachedits possible development during one lifetime. T. H. Huxley, in Evolutionand Ethics and Other Essays (1903). stated that only hasty thinkers woulddismiss rebirth on the ground of inherent absurdity. If rebirth occurred,however, the experiences would be outside conscious memory. Influenceswould only be apparent as innate abilities and wisdom.

Mr. Williams quoted from Dr. Maurice Burton's article in The RationalistAnnual, 1949, that: "The intuitive should not lightly be put aside." Whilethe battle against dogmatism was raging Rationalism dealt with facts ofscience that could be tackled by reasoning, but now it should take a widerview of the cosmos and man. There was no doubt that the subject couldeasily be seized upon for foolish and superstitious beliefs, but the speakerwas convinced that an intensive but cautious study of these new fields wasneeded, so that man might progress psychically as well as organically.

L. L. B.

19

CorrespondenceTo the Editor of The Monthly Record.DEAR SIR—In an article in the September issue of The Monthly Recordentitled "God or Man," the author, R. A., quotes Pope 'Leo X as havingsaid: "These advantages we enjoy thanks to the fable of Jesus Christ.-This is a very grave accusation and, if true, would prove that the head ofthe Roman Catholic Church was simply using the story in the Gospels for .political ends. In other words, that Leo X was a complete hypocrite.

Can R. A. give chapter and verse for his quotation?M. F. UNWIN

[May I take this opportunity to congratulate you on the improved make-up of The Montldy Record.]

R. A. writes:I was quoting from memory and should have checked the quotation.

Mr. Joseph McCabe, in his Testament of Christian Civilisation, calls the

version I gave "late and unreliable". According to him "the contemporaryVenetian Ambassador, Marino Giorgio, tells us that [Leo X] said to hisbrother, Cardinal Giuliano, at his election: `Let us enjoy this Papacy whichGod has given us.' "

The very favourable account in the Encycloptedia, Britannica, by C. H.

Hayes, admits that Leo "was by nature devoid of moral earnestness or deepreligious feeling". So though I was wrong, I was not far wrong.

A Moral Universe?To the Editor of The Monthly Record.DEAR Stit—Rupert L. Flumphris, in the December issue, says that "wherelove lives crime can never lie". Does this not tend to prove that theuniverse is indeed a moral universe? Does not the whole sorry mess thathumanity is in prove this up to the hilt?—i.e. that man is living a lie!He is running affairs to his own selfish advantage, and failing miserably,pitting his puny will against the moral law.

"Man is his own worst enemy." When we live rightly, justly, kindlyand humanly, the whole mighty power of Nature is our ally.

Man being unique among the creatures, as having free-will which placesresponsibility upon him also, must find a way to conquer his selfishness, andlive in harmony with Nature. For all our wonderful and marvellousachievements we have yet to learn how to live.

R. HIGGINS

A Sixth Sense?To the Editor of The Monthly Record.DEAR SIR—In reply lo Mrs. Idiens, "the five senses" commonly referrcd toare those based on the five physical sense organs. As far as we know,neither man nor other animal has a sixth sense organ, unless one wishes toregard the lateral-line organ of fishes as such an organ. That is why thesixth sense attracts so much attention, and is of such undeniable interest.

But do animals communicate with each other by senses other than thetraditional five? A sensitive woman, as well as a sensitive dog, is aware ofthe mood of a loved companion, and an insensitive woman and an insensitivedog are not so aware. Has this anything to do with the sixth sense orwith being "intelligent-? Christians claim they are aware of God by somesuch sixth sense—Faith. Then why not we? "Do let us be broad-mnidedand not deny a fact because we happen. to know little about it."

STILL AN UNTELEPATHIC AThEIST

20

Book ReviewA Wgrrea's NOTEBOOK. By W. Somerset Maugham. 'Heinemann.

Since•the death of Arnold Bennett, the most downright of our novelists inadvocacy of the humanist position is Somerset •augham. A Writer's Note-book is, even more than his Summing-up, a vehicle for the exposition of hisethical philosophy. Like many. another eminent rationalist, fie has little or nouse for metaphysics, although at the same time 'he is interested in all kindsof philosophic theory. He stands directly in line with the famous Englishutilitarians and would. I imagine, have earned almost fil I mbrks from HerbertSpencer. • The office of morality,. he says, is to persuade the individual thatwhat is• of• benefit to society is of benefit to him"; "good is nothing mdrethan the condugt which is fittest to the circumstances of the moment", andthe fittest fob survival. Here,- needless-to say, is a statement that would berepudiated by intuitionists of every school; while being desCribed by- manygood rationalisH as at least incomplete.

Mr. Maughanis notes, whether short or lima, are full of challenge. Heasks whether more than a certain degree of civilisation is not harmful to therace. As long ago as 1896 he put this down:

"1 think it possible Ihat, having arrived at a certain high stage ofcivilisation, men will _wilfully revert to barbarism, or fall back frominability to maintain the high level they have reached."

Fifty years ago did any writer sec ahead more clearly than that? He hasno patience with the people who find good in suffering. As a doctor withexperience of the battlefielkhe says "the notion that pain ennobles is absurd".No reader need contest tho statement that "it is the irreparableness of everyaction that makes life so different", or this, "I don't know why it is that thereligious never ascribe commcin-sense to God."

Nevertheless there are things in the Notebook that one wants to contradict.For instance: that conscience is merely an institiffibn created by society "tosee that its laws are obeyed"; that "Morality is public opinion", or alterna-tively, that "morality can be nothing more than the expression of a personalsatisfaction: it is only a matter of aesthetics". Such dicta as these strike meas nonsense. What has public opinion or mere pergonal satisfaction (ascommonly understood) to do With the imperative duty of truth-speaking, fairdealing, justice and kindness? The individual, says Mr. Maugham, "hasperfect freedom, for there is no power or authority to give him orders". Iprefer John Morley s simple maxim: "Morality is the nature of things."

F. K.

South Place News:Visit to Sir John Soanc's Museum

•This visit, which took place on January 14, was of marked interest. TheCurator, Mr. John Summerson, F.S.A., A.R.I.B.A., who introduced us to theexhibits, explained that the museum was unique in its individuality. Sir JohnSoafte, himself an architect who had designed the old Bank•of England;•liaddesigned this house in Lincoln's Inn Felds and spent much of his-leisure infurnishing it as a museum. His tastes and ideas were ahead of his time4heRegency Period—and the interior had been preserved; according to Thiswishes, almost exactly as he had left it.

There was abundant interest for those of aesthetic thstes. Some finepictures, including original Hogarths (with the "Rake's Progress" aMongstthem), are there, and as his Picture Room lacked space,'Sir John had in-

21

vented ingenious methods for displaying them all. He had also indulged histaste for phantasy in architecture and for originality in furnishing.

Our thanks are due to Mr. Summerson for his pleasant and lucid exposi-tion, which acquainted us with the chief features of interest in the Museum,before leaving us to wander around in order to examine everything in greaterdetail.

A New GroupThe Debating Group held a meeting at 7 p.m. on Friday, January 13.

• Mrs. F. R. Burns spoke on World Citizenship and stressed the importanceof international intercourse and travel. Frontier difficulties were artificialand should be removed. In world politics all nations had equal rights, andthose who benefited from a superior position should concede equality andremove colour bars. The following points were made in the general dis-cussion, that citizenship entails duties, the ability to live in a community, tounderstand and, if need be, to concede to rival aspirations. We in Englandmust accept, with others, responsibility for world conditions and must notblame others. All peoples have a culture evolved to suit their circumstances.The need to survive is paramount, and it is only by increased universaleducation that we can lose our fears of being submerged by force, or overrunby increasing populations. World Citizenship is inevitable. Shall we reachit via a war of extermination or by way of an armed truce merging intoagreement? The discussion was a lively one, bringing out many points ofinterest, and the newly-born group shows healthy signs of development.

Clements Memorial PrizewinnerThe winner of the 1949 £20 Clements Memorial Prize is Peter Hodgson,

who until recently was a student at the Royal Academy of Music, where hewon many prizes for composition. He is a young composer of great promisewhom we hope will in the near future add to the laurels already acquired byBrit ish composers.

The prize-winning work is a quartet for flute, violin, viola, and 'cello, andthe adjudicators were Dr. Edmund Rubbra, Matzas Seiber, and BernardStevens (1942 prize-winner).

Thursday EveningsOn December 15 Mr. O'Dell read The Charity that Began at Home, a

play by St. John Nankin, which was first produced in London in 1906 andhas since been frequently acted by amateur groups, especially in America.nankin was resident, at the same time as Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Clements ofour Society, at Leighton Hall, Kentish Town, the settlement established byDr. Stanton Coit about the turn of the century. The comedy, which isdelightfully amusing, pictures the leader of a "Church of Humanity" whohas extravagant sentimental ideas about kindness and hospitality. The ideaswere certainly not those of Coit, who was a very virile and unsentimentalperson; but the actor who first portrayed the part was purposely made up tolook like him, and no doubt Coit greatly enjoyed the fun at his expense.

South Place String OrchestraSouth Place String Orchestra—Open Evening. The attendance on Friday,

December 16, smaller than was merited by the performance, may have hadtheir numbers curtailed by preparations for Christmas.

The concert was of high standard and the programme varied. It rangedfrom a symphony by Avison (1750) to the Open Road suite of HenryRawlinson and Rumanian dances of Bartok, by way of Grieg's ElegiacMelodies and Wedding Cake by Saint-Saens—Miss Helen Cleaver playedthe piano part of the Saint-Saens work and her playing was attractive and.5/

finished. For a well-deserved encore• she played Capriceioso by Dohnanyi,which was a piece for the virtuoso she proved to be.

Mr. Eric Sawyer's conducting once again had its reward and a fine concertresulted.

Sunday SocialThe programme on December 18 was entirely musical. Mr. E. J. Fairhall

played some short violin solos, which were well received. They werepleasant in style and were played well. Miss Bertha Channing gave somepianoforte items from Schumann's Scenes of Childhood, and she alsoaccompanied Mr. Fairhall and Mr. Dowman, who sang three Songs of theOpen Country, by Easthope Martin.

Miss Channing, accommodating as ever, had a busy afternoon and it isto be hoped that she enjoyed it as much as did her audience.

New Members and AssociatesMr. R. J. Buckingham, 2 Wormholt Road, W.12; Mr. G..M. Hann, 6

Woodville Road, N.W.11; Mr. and Mrs. L. Loth, 21 Brycedale Crescent,N.14: Mr. A. Mathicson, 56 Cathay Building, Singapore; Mr. T. A. Rostron,12 Woodside Road, Sutton, Surrey; Mr. W. Davies, 5 Allan Road, Hares-finch, St. Helens, Lancs.; Mr. A. Fenton, 4 Bedford Place, W.C.1; Mr. C. K.Katumwa, Mityana, P.O. Mityana, Uganda, British East Africa; Mr. L. D.Griffiths, 35 Brentvale Avenue, Alperton, Wembley.

Miss K. M. Logan, 18 Mechlenburgh Square, W.C.I; Mr. W. Peat,17 Lancaster Terrace, W.2.

New Member ?We are pleased to record that Adrian John (aged eight months) has joined

the family of Eileen and Colin Barrelet.

Change of Address of Members and AssociatesMr. and Mrs. C. E. Barralet. Hcverswood, Halstead, Kent; Miss M.

Hilliard, 1 Highbury Terrace, N.5; Mrs. B. M. Watts, "Orchard Cottage,"Sibford Gower, Nr. Banbury, Oxon. Miss A. tivingstone, 43 ThanksgivingBuildings, Grays Inn Road, W.C.I.

We deeply regret to announce the death of William Bell, in his eighty-fourth year. William Bell joined South Place Ethical Society in 1939. Hewas a staunch Fabian Socialist and a temperance worker. In his heyday heconducted much vigorous propaganda, especially as an open-air speaker,for these causes, and he won the admiration and friendship of such men asKeir Hardie and Lord Snell. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of theWorkers' Education Association. Largely self-educated, he left school at theage of ten years and did not retire from work until he was eighty-one. Hehad the satisfaction of seeing the realisation in his lifetime of many of theideals for which he fought. The funeral service at Golders Green wasconducted by Mr. Hector Hawton.

Society's ActivitiesConway Discussion Circle

Weekly discussions on Tuesday evenings at 7 p.m.

N THE LIBRARY

February 7.—A. E. Bonnett, MS., B.SC., "Contemporary Psychology."23

• , February 14.—Maurice Burton, u.sc., "Biology and Human Behaviour."

IN THE LARGE HALL

February 2I.—C. E. M. Joad, M.A., D.LITT., "The Mind-Body Problem,"

IN IHE LIBRARY

February 28.—Stuart Morris (Secretary, Peace Pledge Union), ''Is Paci-fism Practicable?"

Admission free. Collection.

South Place String Orchestra. Conductor, ERIC SAWYER.

Practices take place in the Library on Fridays at 7 . p.m. There arevacancies for competent amateurs. Particulars may be obtained from theHon. Secretary, Mr. E. J. Fairhall, Conway Hall, W.C.I.

Dances

A dance will be held on February 4 at 7.30 p.m.

The last dance of the season will take place on March 4. Tickets 3s. in-cluding refreshments), from the Hon. Secretary, Conway Hall, W.C.I.(CHAncery 8033).

Rambles.

Saturday, February 18. A visit to the Tower of London. Meet at mainentrance, lower Hill, 2 p.m.

. Sunday, February 26. A winter ramble in Epping Forest. Meet atHighams'Park Station, 2.30 p.m. No. 35 bus or train from Liverpool Street.Walk via Chingford, Connaught Water and Monkham's Wood to tea atQueens Tea Rooms, Buckhurst Hill. Return from Loughton. Leader: Mr.B. 0. Warwick.

Thursday Evenings in the Library at 7 p.m.

February 2.—Mr. Geo. E. O'Dell Play-reading, "Diana of Dobsons",by Cicely Hamilton.

9.—Whist Drive.

-'16.—Open Evening.

23.—Play-reading by Miss Walters

International Youth Movement

To readers under thirty, who would be interested in a vigorous Internation-al Youth Movement, write to H. Grabowsky, Van Leenwenhoeksineel 29,Delft,-Holland.

Sunday Social

February 19, in the Library, at 3 p.m. ;Mrs. N:Spiller "Three Months inParis."

The Monthly Record is posted- free to Members and 4ssoeintes.T 'The annuaP,charge

to subscribers is 4s. Matter for publication in the March issue should reach the Editor,.

G. C. DowslAs. Conway Hall. Red Lion Square. W.C.1, by February 10.

FARLEIGH PRESS LTD. (TAL), REECIIWOOD RISE, WATFORD.