<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0022" id="link2H_4_0022"></SPAN></p>
<h2> The Anarchist </h2>
<p>I have now lived for about two months in the country, and have gathered
the last rich autumnal fruit of a rural life, which is a strong desire to
see London. Artists living in my neighbourhood talk rapturously of the
rolling liberty of the landscape, the living peace of woods. But I say to
them (with a slight Buckinghamshire accent), "Ah, that is how Cockneys
feel. For us real old country people the country is reality; it is the
town that is romance. Nature is as plain as one of her pigs, as
commonplace, as comic, and as healthy. But civilization is full of poetry,
even if it be sometimes an evil poetry. The streets of London are paved
with gold; that is, with the very poetry of avarice." With these typically
bucolic words I touch my hat and go ambling away on a stick, with a
stiffness of gait proper to the Oldest Inhabitant; while in my more
animated moments I am taken for the Village Idiot. Exchanging heavy but
courteous salutations with other gaffers, I reach the station, where I ask
for a ticket for London where the king lives. Such a journey, mingled of
provincial fascination and fear, did I successfully perform only a few
days ago; and alone and helpless in the capital, found myself in the
tangle of roads around the Marble Arch.</p>
<p>A faint prejudice may possess the mind that I have slightly exaggerated my
rusticity and remoteness. And yet it is true as I came to that corner of
the Park that, for some unreasonable reason of mood, I saw all London as a
strange city and the civilization itself as one enormous whim. The Marble
Arch itself, in its new insular position, with traffic turning dizzily all
about it, struck me as a placid monstrosity. What could be wilder than to
have a huge arched gateway, with people going everywhere except under it?
If I took down my front door and stood it up all by itself in the middle
of my back garden, my village neighbours (in their simplicity) would
probably stare. Yet the Marble Arch is now precisely that; an elaborate
entrance and the only place by which no one can enter. By the new
arrangement its last weak pretence to be a gate has been taken away. The
cabman still cannot drive through it, but he can have the delights of
riding round it, and even (on foggy nights) the rapture of running into
it. It has been raised from the rank of a fiction to the dignity of an
obstacle.</p>
<p>As I began to walk across a corner of the Park, this sense of what is
strange in cities began to mingle with some sense of what is stern as well
as strange. It was one of those queer-coloured winter days when a watery
sky changes to pink and grey and green, like an enormous opal. The trees
stood up grey and angular, as if in attitudes of agony; and here and there
on benches under the trees sat men as grey and angular as they. It was
cold even for me, who had eaten a large breakfast and purposed to eat a
perfectly Gargantuan lunch; it was colder for the men under the trees. And
to eastward through the opalescent haze, the warmer whites and yellows of
the houses in Park-lane shone as unsubstantially as if the clouds
themselves had taken on the shape of mansions to mock the men who sat
there in the cold. But the mansions were real—like the mockery.</p>
<p>No one worth calling a man allows his moods to change his convictions; but
it is by moods that we understand other men's convictions. The bigot is
not he who knows he is right; every sane man knows he is right. The bigot
is he whose emotions and imagination are too cold and weak to feel how it
is that other men go wrong. At that moment I felt vividly how men might go
wrong, even unto dynamite. If one of those huddled men under the trees had
stood up and asked for rivers of blood, it would have been erroneous—but
not irrelevant. It would have been appropriate and in the picture; that
lurid grey picture of insolence on one side and impotence on the other. It
may be true (on the whole it is) that this social machine we have made is
better than anarchy. Still, it is a machine; and we have made it. It does
hold those poor men helpless: and it does lift those rich men high... and
such men—good Lord! By the time I flung myself on a bench beside
another man I was half inclined to try anarchy for a change.</p>
<p>The other was of more prosperous appearance than most of the men on such
seats; still, he was not what one calls a gentleman, and had probably
worked at some time like a human being. He was a small, sharp-faced man,
with grave, staring eyes, and a beard somewhat foreign. His clothes were
black; respectable and yet casual; those of a man who dressed
conventionally because it was a bore to dress unconventionally—as it
is. Attracted by this and other things, and wanting an outburst for my
bitter social feelings, I tempted him into speech, first about the cold,
and then about the General Election. To this the respectable man replied:</p>
<p>"Well, I don't belong to any party myself. I'm an Anarchist."</p>
<p>I looked up and almost expected fire from heaven. This coincidence was
like the end of the world. I had sat down feeling that somehow or other
Park-lane must be pulled down; and I had sat down beside the man who
wanted to pull it down. I bowed in silence for an instant under the
approaching apocalypse; and in that instant the man turned sharply and
started talking like a torrent.</p>
<p>"Understand me," he said. "Ordinary people think an Anarchist means a man
with a bomb in his pocket. Herbert Spencer was an Anarchist. But for that
fatal admission of his on page 793, he would be a complete Anarchist.
Otherwise, he agrees wholly with Pidge."</p>
<p>This was uttered with such blinding rapidity of syllabification as to be a
better test of teetotalism than the Scotch one of saying "Biblical
criticism" six times. I attempted to speak, but he began again with the
same rippling rapidity.</p>
<p>"You will say that Pidge also admits government in that tenth chapter so
easily misunderstood. Bolger has attacked Pidge on those lines. But Bolger
has no scientific training. Bolger is a psychometrist, but no sociologist.
To any one who has combined a study of Pidge with the earlier and better
discoveries of Kruxy, the fallacy is quite clear. Bolger confounds social
coercion with coercional social action."</p>
<p>His rapid rattling mouth shut quite tight suddenly, and he looked steadily
and triumphantly at me, with his head on one side. I opened my mouth, and
the mere motion seemed to sting him to fresh verbal leaps.</p>
<p>"Yes," he said, "that's all very well. The Finland Group has accepted
Bolger. But," he said, suddenly lifting a long finger as if to stop me,
"but—Pidge has replied. His pamphlet is published. He has proved
that Potential Social Rebuke is not a weapon of the true Anarchist. He has
shown that just as religious authority and political authority have gone,
so must emotional authority and psychological authority. He has shown—"</p>
<p>I stood up in a sort of daze. "I think you remarked," I said feebly, "that
the mere common populace do not quite understand Anarchism"—"Quite
so," he said with burning swiftness; "as I said, they think any Anarchist
is a man with a bomb, whereas—"</p>
<p>"But great heavens, man!" I said; "it's the man with the bomb that I
understand! I wish you had half his sense. What do I care how many German
dons tie themselves in knots about how this society began? My only
interest is about how soon it will end. Do you see those fat white houses
over in Park-lane, where your masters live?"</p>
<p>He assented and muttered something about concentrations of capital.</p>
<p>"Well," I said, "if the time ever comes when we all storm those houses,
will you tell me one thing? Tell me how we shall do it without authority?
Tell me how you will have an army of revolt without discipline?"</p>
<p>For the first instant he was doubtful; and I had bidden him farewell, and
crossed the street again, when I saw him open his mouth and begin to run
after me. He had remembered something out of Pidge.</p>
<p>I escaped, however, and as I leapt on an omnibus I saw again the enormous
emblem of the Marble Arch. I saw that massive symbol of the modern mind: a
door with no house to it; the gigantic gate of Nowhere.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0023" id="link2H_4_0023"></SPAN></p>
<h2> How I found the Superman </h2>
<p>Readers of Mr. Bernard Shaw and other modern writers may be interested to
know that the Superman has been found. I found him; he lives in South
Croydon. My success will be a great blow to Mr. Shaw, who has been
following quite a false scent, and is now looking for the creature in
Blackpool; and as for Mr. Wells's notion of generating him out of gases in
a private laboratory, I always thought it doomed to failure. I assure Mr.
Wells that the Superman at Croydon was born in the ordinary way, though he
himself, of course, is anything but ordinary.</p>
<p>Nor are his parents unworthy of the wonderful being whom they have given
to the world. The name of Lady Hypatia Smythe-Browne (now Lady Hypatia
Hagg) will never be forgotten in the East End, where she did such splendid
social work. Her constant cry of "Save the children!" referred to the
cruel neglect of children's eyesight involved in allowing them to play
with crudely painted toys. She quoted unanswerable statistics to prove
that children allowed to look at violet and vermilion often suffered from
failing eyesight in their extreme old age; and it was owing to her
ceaseless crusade that the pestilence of the Monkey-on-the-Stick was
almost swept from Hoxton. The devoted worker would tramp the streets
untiringly, taking away the toys from all the poor children, who were
often moved to tears by her kindness. Her good work was interrupted,
partly by a new interest in the creed of Zoroaster, and partly by a savage
blow from an umbrella. It was inflicted by a dissolute Irish apple-woman,
who, on returning from some orgy to her ill-kept apartment, found Lady
Hypatia in the bedroom taking down an oleograph, which, to say the least
of it, could not really elevate the mind. At this the ignorant and partly
intoxicated Celt dealt the social reformer a severe blow, adding to it an
absurd accusation of theft. The lady's exquisitely balanced mind received
a shock, and it was during a short mental illness that she married Dr.
Hagg.</p>
<p>Of Dr. Hagg himself I hope there is no need to speak. Any one even
slightly acquainted with those daring experiments in Neo-Individualist
Eugenics, which are now the one absorbing interest of the English
democracy, must know his name and often commend it to the personal
protection of an impersonal power. Early in life he brought to bear that
ruthless insight into the history of religions which he had gained in
boyhood as an electrical engineer. Later he became one of our greatest
geologists; and achieved that bold and bright outlook upon the future of
Socialism which only geology can give. At first there seemed something
like a rift, a faint, but perceptible, fissure, between his views and
those of his aristocratic wife. For she was in favour (to use her own
powerful epigram) of protecting the poor against themselves; while he
declared pitilessly, in a new and striking metaphor, that the weakest must
go to the wall. Eventually, however, the married pair perceived an
essential union in the unmistakably modern character of both their views,
and in this enlightening and intelligible formula their souls found peace.
The result is that this union of the two highest types of our
civilization, the fashionable lady and the all but vulgar medical man, has
been blessed by the birth of the Superman, that being whom all the
labourers in Battersea are so eagerly expecting night and day.</p>
<p>I found the house of Dr. and Lady Hypatia Hagg without much difficulty; it
is situated in one of the last straggling streets of Croydon, and
overlooked by a line of poplars. I reached the door towards the twilight,
and it was natural that I should fancifully see something dark and
monstrous in the dim bulk of that house which contained the creature who
was more marvellous than the children of men. When I entered the house I
was received with exquisite courtesy by Lady Hypatia and her husband; but
I found much greater difficulty in actually seeing the Superman, who is
now about fifteen years old, and is kept by himself in a quiet room. Even
my conversation with the father and mother did not quite clear up the
character of this mysterious being. Lady Hypatia, who has a pale and
poignant face, and is clad in those impalpable and pathetic greys and
greens with which she has brightened so many homes in Hoxton, did not
appear to talk of her offspring with any of the vulgar vanity of an
ordinary human mother. I took a bold step and asked if the Superman was
nice looking.</p>
<p>"He creates his own standard, you see," she replied, with a slight sigh.
"Upon that plane he is more than Apollo. Seen from our lower plane, of
course—" And she sighed again.</p>
<p>I had a horrible impulse, and said suddenly, "Has he got any hair?"</p>
<p>There was a long and painful silence, and then Dr. Hagg said smoothly:
"Everything upon that plane is different; what he has got is not... well,
not, of course, what we call hair... but—"</p>
<p>"Don't you think," said his wife, very softly, "don't you think that
really, for the sake of argument, when talking to the mere public, one
might call it hair?"</p>
<p>"Perhaps you are right," said the doctor after a few moments' reflection.
"In connexion with hair like that one must speak in parables."</p>
<p>"Well, what on earth is it," I asked in some irritation, "if it isn't
hair? Is it feathers?"</p>
<p>"Not feathers, as we understand feathers," answered Hagg in an awful
voice.</p>
<p>I got up in some irritation. "Can I see him, at any rate?" I asked. "I am
a journalist, and have no earthly motives except curiosity and personal
vanity. I should like to say that I had shaken hands with the Superman."</p>
<p>The husband and wife had both got heavily to their feet, and stood,
embarrassed. "Well, of course, you know," said Lady Hypatia, with the
really charming smile of the aristocratic hostess. "You know he can't
exactly shake hands... not hands, you know.... The structure, of course—"</p>
<p>I broke out of all social bounds, and rushed at the door of the room which
I thought to contain the incredible creature. I burst it open; the room
was pitch dark. But from in front of me came a small sad yelp, and from
behind me a double shriek.</p>
<p>"You have done it, now!" cried Dr. Hagg, burying his bald brow in his
hands. "You have let in a draught on him; and he is dead."</p>
<p>As I walked away from Croydon that night I saw men in black carrying out a
coffin that was not of any human shape. The wind wailed above me, whirling
the poplars, so that they drooped and nodded like the plumes of some
cosmic funeral. "It is, indeed," said Dr. Hagg, "the whole universe
weeping over the frustration of its most magnificent birth." But I thought
that there was a hoot of laughter in the high wail of the wind.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0024" id="link2H_4_0024"></SPAN></p>
<h2> The New House </h2>
<p>Within a stone's throw of my house they are building another house. I am
glad they are building it, and I am glad it is within a stone's throw;
quite well within it, with a good catapult. Nevertheless, I have not yet
cast the first stone at the new house—not being, strictly speaking,
guiltless myself in the matter of new houses. And, indeed, in such cases
there is a strong protest to be made. The whole curse of the last century
has been what is called the Swing of the Pendulum; that is the idea that
Man must go alternately from one extreme to the other. It is a shameful
and even shocking fancy; it is the denial of the whole dignity of mankind.
When Man is alive he stands still. It is only when he is dead that he
swings. But whenever one meets modern thinkers (as one often does)
progressing towards a madhouse, one always finds, on inquiry, that they
have just had a splendid escape from another madhouse. Thus, hundreds of
people become Socialists, not because they have tried Socialism and found
it nice, but because they have tried Individualism and found it
particularly nasty. Thus, many embrace Christian Science solely because
they are quite sick of heathen science; they are so tired of believing
that everything is matter that they will even take refuge in the revolting
fable that everything is mind. Man ought to march somewhere. But modern
man (in his sick reaction) is ready to march nowhere—so long as it
is the Other End of Nowhere.</p>
<p>The case of building houses is a strong instance of this. Early in the
nineteenth century our civilization chose to abandon the Greek and
medieval idea of a town, with walls, limited and defined, with a temple
for faith and a market-place for politics; and it chose to let the city
grow like a jungle with blind cruelty and bestial unconsciousness; so that
London and Liverpool are the great cities we now see. Well, people have
reacted against that; they have grown tired of living in a city which is
as dark and barbaric as a forest only not as beautiful, and there has been
an exodus into the country of those who could afford it, and some I could
name who can't. Now, as soon as this quite rational recoil occurred, it
flew at once to the opposite extreme. People went about with beaming
faces, boasting that they were twenty-three miles from a station. Rubbing
their hands, they exclaimed in rollicking asides that their butcher only
called once a month, and that their baker started out with fresh hot
loaves which were quite stale before they reached the table. A man would
praise his little house in a quiet valley, but gloomily admit (with a
slight shake of the head) that a human habitation on the distant horizon
was faintly discernible on a clear day. Rival ruralists would quarrel
about which had the most completely inconvenient postal service; and there
were many jealous heartburnings if one friend found out any uncomfortable
situation which the other friend had thoughtlessly overlooked.</p>
<p>In the feverish summer of this fanaticism there arose the phrase that this
or that part of England is being "built over." Now, there is not the
slightest objection, in itself, to England being built over by men, any
more than there is to its being (as it is already) built over by birds, or
by squirrels, or by spiders. But if birds' nests were so thick on a tree
that one could see nothing but nests and no leaves at all, I should say
that bird civilization was becoming a bit decadent. If whenever I tried to
walk down the road I found the whole thoroughfare one crawling carpet of
spiders, closely interlocked, I should feel a distress verging on
distaste. If one were at every turn crowded, elbowed, overlooked,
overcharged, sweated, rack-rented, swindled, and sold up by avaricious and
arrogant squirrels, one might at last remonstrate. But the great towns
have grown intolerable solely because of such suffocating vulgarities and
tyrannies. It is not humanity that disgusts us in the huge cities; it is
inhumanity. It is not that there are human beings; but that they are not
treated as such. We do not, I hope, dislike men and women; we only dislike
their being made into a sort of jam: crushed together so that they are not
merely powerless but shapeless. It is not the presence of people that
makes London appalling. It is merely the absence of The People.</p>
<p>Therefore, I dance with joy to think that my part of England is being
built over, so long as it is being built over in a human way at human
intervals and in a human proportion. So long, in short, as I am not myself
built over, like a pagan slave buried in the foundations of a temple, or
an American clerk in a star-striking pagoda of flats, I am delighted to
see the faces and the homes of a race of bipeds, to which I am not only
attracted by a strange affection, but to which also (by a touching
coincidence) I actually happen to belong. I am not one desiring deserts. I
am not Timon of Athens; if my town were Athens I would stay in it. I am
not Simeon Stylites; except in the mournful sense that every Saturday I
find myself on the top of a newspaper column. I am not in the desert
repenting of some monstrous sins; at least, I am repenting of them all
right, but not in the desert. I do not want the nearest human house to be
too distant to see; that is my objection to the wilderness. But neither do
I want the nearest human house to be too close to see; that is my
objection to the modern city. I love my fellow-man; I do not want him so
far off that I can only observe anything of him through a telescope, nor
do I want him so close that I can examine parts of him with a microscope.
I want him within a stone's throw of me; so that whenever it is really
necessary, I may throw the stone.</p>
<p>Perhaps, after all, it may not be a stone. Perhaps, after all, it may be a
bouquet, or a snowball, or a firework, or a Free Trade Loaf; perhaps they
will ask for a stone and I shall give them bread. But it is essential that
they should be within reach: how can I love my neighbour as myself if he
gets out of range for snowballs? There should be no institution out of the
reach of an indignant or admiring humanity. I could hit the nearest house
quite well with the catapult; but the truth is that the catapult belongs
to a little boy I know, and, with characteristic youthful 'selfishness, he
has taken it away.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />