Fashionable Philosophy | Page 2

we both owed that vulgar
upstart, Mrs Houndsley, a visit, and went there together--because I
always think two people are less easily bored than one--when suddenly
the most perfect apparition you ever beheld stood before us;--an old
master dress, an immense pattern, a large hat rim encircling a face,
some rich auburn hair inside, and the face a perfect one. Well, you
know, it turned out that she was not born in the purple--her husband is
just a clerk in Burley's Bank; but we both insisted on being introduced
to her--for, you see, my dear, there is no doubt about it, she is a ready-
made beauty. The same idea occurred to Lady Islington, so we agreed
as we drove away that we would bring her out. The result is, that she
went to Islington House on Tuesday, and came to me on Thursday, and
created a perfect furor on both occasions; so now she is fairly started.
Mrs Allmash. How wonderfully clever and fortunate you are, dear!
What is her name?
Lady Fritterly. Mrs Gloring.

Mrs Allmash. Oh yes; everybody was talking about her at the Duchess's
last night. I am dying to see her; but they say that she is rather a fool.
Lady Fritterly. Pure spite and jealousy. Yet that is the way these
Christian women of society obey the precept of their religion, and love
their neighbours as themselves.
[Lord Fondleton is announced, accompanied by a stranger.
Lord Fondleton. How d'ye do, Lady Fritterly? I am sure you will
excuse my taking the liberty of introducing Mr Rollestone, a very old
friend of mine, to you; he has only just returned to England, after an
absence of so many years that he is quite a stranger in London.
[Lady Fritterly is "delighted." The rest of the party arrive in rapid
succession.
Mrs Allmash. Dear Mr Germsell, I was just telling Lady Fritterly what
an interesting conversation we were having last night when it was
unfortunately interrupted. I shall be so glad if you would explain more
fully now what you were telling me. I am sure everybody would be
interested.
Lady Fritterly. Oh do, Mr Germsell; it would be quite too nice of you.
And, Mr Drygull, will you ask the Khoja to--
Mr Drygull. My friend's name is Ali Seyyid, Lady Fritterly.
Lady Fritterly. Pray excuse my stupidity, Mr Allyside, and come and
sit near me. Lord Fondleton, find Mrs Gloring a chair.
Lord Fondleton [aside to Mrs Gloring]. Who's our black friend?
Mrs Gloring. I am sure I don't know. I think Lady Fritterly called him a
codger.
Lord Fondleton. Ah, he looks like it,--and a rum one at that, as our
American cousins say.

Mrs Gloring. Hush! Mr Germsell is going to begin.
Mr Germsell. Mrs Allmash asked me last night whether my thoughts
had been directed to the topic which is uppermost just now in so many
minds in regard to the religion of the future, and I ventured to tell her
that it would be found to be contained in the generalised expediency of
the past.
Mr Fussle. Pardon me, but the religion of the future must be the result
of an evolutionary process, and I don't see how generalisations of past
expediency are to help the evolution of humanity.
Germsell. They throw light upon it; and the study of the evolutionary
process so far teaches us how we may evolve in the future. For instance,
you have only got to think of evolution as divided into moral,
astronomic, geologic, biologic, psychologic, sociologic, aesthetic, and
so forth, and you will find that there is always an evolution of the parts
into which it divides itself, and that therefore there is but one evolution
going on everywhere after the same manner. The work of science has
been not to extend our experience, for that is impossible, but to
systematise it; and in that systematisation of it will be found the
religion of which we are in search.
Drygull. May I ask why you deem it impossible that our experience can
be extended?
Germsell. Because it has itself defined its limits. The combined
experience of humanity, so far as its earliest records go, has been
limited by laws, the nature of which have been ascertained: it is
impossible that it should be transcended without violation of the
conclusions arrived at by positive science.
Drygull. I can more easily understand that the conclusions arrived at by
men of science should be limited, than that the experience of humanity
should be confined by those conclusions; but I fail to perceive why
those philosophers should deny the existence of certain human faculties,
because they don't happen to possess them themselves. I think I know a
Rishi who can produce experiences which would scatter all their

conclusions to the winds,