A Miscellany of Men | Page 8

can really declare all land to be common
land, not because Harrod's Stores exist and the commonwealth must
copy them. Female suffrage may be just. But if it is just, it is just
because women are women, not because women are sweated workers
and white slaves and all sorts of things that they ought never to have
been. Let not the Imperialist accept a colony because it is there, nor the
Suffragist seize a vote because it is lying about, nor the Socialist buy up
an industry merely because it is for sale.
Let us ask ourselves first what we really do want, not what recent legal
decisions have told us to want, or recent logical philosophies proved
that we must want, or recent social prophecies predicted that we shall

some day want. If there must be a British Empire, let it be British, and
not, in mere panic, American or Prussian. If there ought to be female
suffrage, let it be female, and not a mere imitation as coarse as the male
blackguard or as dull as the male clerk. If there is to be Socialism, let it
be social; that is, as different as possible from all the big commercial
departments of to-day. The really good journeyman tailor does not cut
his coat according to his cloth; he asks for more cloth. The really
practical statesman does not fit himself to existing conditions, he
denounces the conditions as unfit. History is like some deeply planted
tree which, though gigantic in girth, tapers away at last into tiny twigs;
and we are in the topmost branches. Each of us is trying to bend the
tree by a twig: to alter England through a distant colony, or to capture
the State through a small State department, or to destroy all voting
through a vote. In all such bewilderment he is wise who resists this
temptation of trivial triumph or surrender, and happy (in an echo of the
Roman poet) who remembers the roots of things.

THE NAMELESS MAN
There are only two forms of government the monarchy or personal
government, and the republic or impersonal government. England is
not a government; England is an anarchy, because there are so many
kings. But there is one real advantage (among many real disadvantages)
in the method of abstract democracy, and that is this: that under
impersonal government politics are so much more personal. In France
and America, where the State is an abstraction, political argument is
quite full of human details--some might even say of inhuman details.
But in England, precisely because we are ruled by personages, these
personages do not permit personalities. In England names are honoured,
and therefore names are suppressed. But in the republics, in France
especially, a man can put his enemies' names into his article and his
own name at the end of it.
This is the essential condition of such candour. If we merely made our
anonymous articles more violent, we should be baser than we are now.
We should only be arming masked men with daggers instead of cudgels.

And I, for one, have always believed in the more general signing of
articles, and have signed my own articles on many occasions when,
heaven knows, I had little reason to be vain of them. I have heard many
arguments for anonymity; but they all seem to amount to the statement
that anonymity is safe, which is just what I complain of. In matters of
truth the fact that you don't want to publish something is, nine times out
of ten, a proof that you ought to publish it.
But there is one answer to my perpetual plea for a man putting his
name to his writing. There is one answer, and there is only one answer,
and it is never given. It is that in the modern complexity very often a
man's name is almost as false as his pseudonym. The prominent person
today is eternally trying to lose a name, and to get a title. For instance,
we all read with earnestness and patience the pages of the 'Daily Mail',
and there are times when we feel moved to cry, "Bring to us the man
who thought these strange thoughts! Pursue him, capture him, take
great care of him. Bring him back to us tenderly, like some precious
bale of silk, that we may look upon the face of the man who desires
such things to be printed. Let us know his name; his social and medical
pedigree." But in the modern muddle (it might be said) how little
should we gain if those frankly fatuous sheets were indeed subscribed
by the man who had inspired them. Suppose that after every article
stating that the Premier is a piratical Socialist there were printed the
simple