Fishing with a Worm | Page 5

soul untouched.
A man may have them at his finger's ends and be no better fisherman at
bottom; or he may, like R., ignore most of the admitted rules and come
home with a full basket. It is a sufficient defense of fishing with a
worm to pronounce the truism that no man is a complete angler until he
has mastered all the modes of angling. Lovely streams, lonely and
enticing, but impossible to fish with a fly, await the fisherman who is
not too proud to use, with a man's skill, the same unpretentious tackle
which he began with as a boy.

But ah, to fish with a worm, and then not catch your fish! To fail with a
fly is no disgrace: your art may have been impeccable, your patience
faultless to the end. But the philosophy of worm-fishing is that of
Results, of having something tangible in your basket when the day's
work is done. It is a plea for Compromise, for cutting the coat
according to the cloth, for taking the world as it actually is. The
fly-fisherman is a natural Foe of Compromise. He throws to the trout a
certain kind of lure; an they will take it, so; if not, adieu. He knows no

middle path.
"This high man, aiming at a million, Misses an unit."
The raptures and the tragedies of consistency are his. He is a scorner of
the ground. All honor to him! When he comes back at nightfall and
says happily, "I have never cast a line more perfectly than I have
to-day," it is almost indecent to peek into his creel. It is like rating
Colonel Newcome by his bank account.
But the worm-fisherman is no such proud and isolated soul. He is a
"low man" rather than a high one; he honestly cares what his friends
will think when they look into his basket to see what he has to show for
his day's sport. He watches the Foe of Compromise men go stumbling
forward and superbly falling, while he, with less inflexible courage,
manages to keep his feet. He wants to score, and not merely to give a
pretty exhibition of base-running. At the Harvard-Yale football game of
1903 the Harvard team showed superior strength in rushing the ball;
they carried it almost to the Yale goal line repeatedly, but they could
not, for some reason, take it over. In the instant of absolute need, the
Yale line held, and when the Yale team had to score in order to win,
they scored. As the crowd streamed out of the Stadium, a veteran
Harvard alumnus said: "This news will cause great sorrow in one home
I know of, until they learn by to-morrow's papers that the Harvard team
acquitted itself creditably." Exactly. Given one team bent upon
acquitting itself creditably, and another team determined to win, which
will be victorious? The stay-at-homes on the Yale campus that day
were not curious to know whether their team was acquitting itself
creditably, but whether it was winning the game. Every other question
than that was to those young Philistines merely a fine-spun irrelevance.
They took the Cash and let the Credit go.
There is much to be said, no doubt, for the Harvard veteran's point of
view. The proper kind of credit may be a better asset for eleven boys
than any championship; and to fish a bit of water consistently and
skillfully, with your best flies and in your best manner, is perhaps
achievement enough. So says the Foe of Compromise, at least. But the
Yale spirit will be prying into the basket in search of fish; it prefers

concrete results. If all men are by nature either Platonists or
Aristotelians, fly-fishermen or worm-fishermen, how difficult it is for
us to do one another justice! Differing in mind, in aim and method,
how shall we say infallibly that this man or that is wrong? To fail with
Plato for companion may be better than to succeed with Aristotle. But
one thing is perfectly clear: there is no warrant for Compromise but in
Success. Use a worm if you will, but you must have fish to show for it,
if you would escape the finger of scorn. If you find yourself camping
by an unknown brook, and are deputed to catch the necessary trout for
breakfast, it is wiser to choose the surest bait. The crackle of the fish in
the frying-pan will atone for any theoretical defect in your method. But
to choose the surest bait, and then to bring back no fish, is unforgivable.
Forsake Plato if you must,--but you may do so only at the price of
justifying yourself in the terms of Aristotelian arithmetic. The college
president who abandoned his college in order to run a