<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0031" id="link2H_4_0031"></SPAN></p>
<h2> The Wheel </h2>
<p>In a quiet and rustic though fairly famous church in my neighbourhood
there is a window supposed to represent an Angel on a Bicycle. It does
definitely and indisputably represent a nude youth sitting on a wheel; but
there is enough complication in the wheel and sanctity (I suppose) in the
youth to warrant this working description. It is a thing of florid
Renascence outline, and belongs to the highly pagan period which
introduced all sorts of objects into ornament: personally I can believe in
the bicycle more than in the angel. Men, they say, are now imitating
angels; in their flying-machines, that is: not in any other respect that I
have heard of. So perhaps the angel on the bicycle (if he is an angel and
if it is a bicycle) was avenging himself by imitating man. If so, he
showed that high order of intellect which is attributed to angels in the
mediaeval books, though not always (perhaps) in the mediaeval pictures.</p>
<p>For wheels are the mark of a man quite as much as wings are the mark of an
angel. Wheels are the things that are as old as mankind and yet are
strictly peculiar to man, that are prehistoric but not pre-human.</p>
<p>A distinguished psychologist, who is well acquainted with physiology, has
told me that parts of himself are certainly levers, while other parts are
probably pulleys, but that after feeling himself carefully all over, he
cannot find a wheel anywhere. The wheel, as a mode of movement, is a
purely human thing. On the ancient escutcheon of Adam (which, like much of
the rest of his costume, has not yet been discovered) the heraldic emblem
was a wheel—passant. As a mode of progress, I say, it is unique.
Many modern philosophers, like my friend before mentioned, are ready to
find links between man and beast, and to show that man has been in all
things the blind slave of his mother earth. Some, of a very different
kind, are even eager to show it; especially if it can be twisted to the
discredit of religion. But even the most eager scientists have often
admitted in my hearing that they would be surprised if some kind of cow
approached them moving solemnly on four wheels. Wings, fins, flappers,
claws, hoofs, webs, trotters, with all these the fantastic families of the
earth come against us and close around us, fluttering and flapping and
rustling and galloping and lumbering and thundering; but there is no sound
of wheels.</p>
<p>I remember dimly, if, indeed, I remember aright, that in some of those
dark prophetic pages of Scripture, that seem of cloudy purple and dusky
gold, there is a passage in which the seer beholds a violent dream of
wheels. Perhaps this was indeed the symbolic declaration of the spiritual
supremacy of man. Whatever the birds may do above or the fishes beneath
his ship, man is the only thing to steer; the only thing to be conceived
as steering. He may make the birds his friends, if he can. He may make the
fishes his gods, if he chooses. But most certainly he will not believe a
bird at the masthead; and it is hardly likely that he will even permit a
fish at the helm. He is, as Swinburne says, helmsman and chief: he is
literally the Man at the Wheel.</p>
<p>The wheel is an animal that is always standing on its head; only "it does
it so rapidly that no philosopher has ever found out which is its head."
Or if the phrase be felt as more exact, it is an animal that is always
turning head over heels and progressing by this principle. Some fish, I
think, turn head over heels (supposing them, for the sake of argument, to
have heels); I have a dog who nearly did it; and I did it once myself when
I was very small. It was an accident, and, as delightful novelist, Mr. De
Morgan, would say, it never can happen again. Since then no one has
accused me of being upside down except mentally: and I rather think that
there is something to be said for that; especially as typified by the
rotary symbol. A wheel is the sublime paradox; one part of it is always
going forward and the other part always going back. Now this, as it
happens, is highly similar to the proper condition of any human soul or
any political state. Every sane soul or state looks at once backwards and
forwards; and even goes backwards to come on.</p>
<p>For those interested in revolt (as I am) I only say meekly that one cannot
have a Revolution without revolving. The wheel, being a logical thing, has
reference to what is behind as well as what is before. It has (as every
society should have) a part that perpetually leaps helplessly at the sky
and a part that perpetually bows down its head into the dust. Why should
people be so scornful of us who stand on our heads? Bowing down one's head
in the dust is a very good thing, the humble beginning of all happiness.
When we have bowed our heads in the dust for a little time the happiness
comes; and then (leaving our heads' in the humble and reverent position)
we kick up our heels behind in the air. That is the true origin of
standing on one's head; and the ultimate defence of paradox. The wheel
humbles itself to be exalted; only it does it a little quicker than I do.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0032" id="link2H_4_0032"></SPAN></p>
<h2> Five Hundred and Fifty-five </h2>
<p>Life is full of a ceaseless shower of small coincidences: too small to be
worth mentioning except for a special purpose, often too trifling even to
be noticed, any more than we notice one snowflake falling on another. It
is this that lends a frightful plausibility to all false doctrines and
evil fads. There are always such crowds of accidental arguments for
anything. If I said suddenly that historical truth is generally told by
red-haired men, I have no doubt that ten minutes' reflection (in which I
decline to indulge) would provide me with a handsome list of instances in
support of it. I remember a riotous argument about Bacon and Shakespeare
in which I offered quite at random to show that Lord Rosebery had written
the works of Mr. W. B. Yeats. No sooner had I said the words than a
torrent of coincidences rushed upon my mind. I pointed out, for instance,
that Mr. Yeats's chief work was "The Secret Rose." This may easily be
paraphrased as "The Quiet or Modest Rose"; and so, of course, as the
Primrose. A second after I saw the same suggestion in the combination of
"rose" and "bury." If I had pursued the matter, who knows but I might have
been a raving maniac by this time.</p>
<p>We trip over these trivial repetitions and exactitudes at every turn, only
they are too trivial even for conversation. A man named Williams did walk
into a strange house and murder a man named Williamson; it sounds like a
sort of infanticide. A journalist of my acquaintance did move quite
unconsciously from a place called Overstrand to a place called Overroads.
When he had made this escape he was very properly pursued by a voting card
from Battersea, on which a political agent named Burn asked him to vote
for a political candidate named Burns. And when he did so another
coincidence happened to him: rather a spiritual than a material
coincidence; a mystical thing, a matter of a magic number.</p>
<p>For a sufficient number of reasons, the man I know went up to vote in
Battersea in a drifting and even dubious frame of mind. As the train slid
through swampy woods and sullen skies there came into his empty mind those
idle and yet awful questions which come when the mind is empty. Fools make
cosmic systems out of them; knaves make profane poems out of them; men try
to crush them like an ugly lust. Religion is only the responsible
reinforcement of common courage and common sense. Religion only sets up
the normal mood of health against the hundred moods of disease.</p>
<p>But there is this about such ghastly empty enigmas, that they always have
an answer to the obvious answer, the reply offered by daily reason.
Suppose a man's children have gone swimming; suppose he is suddenly
throttled by the senseless—fear that they are drowned. The obvious
answer is, "Only one man in a thousand has his children drowned." But a
deeper voice (deeper, being as deep as hell) answers, "And why should not
you—be the thousandth man?" What is true of tragic doubt is true
also of trivial doubt. The voter's guardian devil said to him, "If you
don't vote to-day you can do fifteen things which will quite certainly do
some good somewhere, please a friend, please a child, please a maddened
publisher. And what good do you expect to do by voting? You don't think
your man will get in by one vote, do you?" To this he knew the answer of
common sense, "But if everybody said that, nobody would get in at all."
And then there came that deeper voice from Hades, "But you are not
settling what everybody shall do, but what one person on one occasion
shall do. If this afternoon you went your way about more solid things, how
would it matter and who would ever know?" Yet somehow the voter drove on
blindly through the blackening London roads, and found somewhere a tedious
polling station and recorded his tiny vote.</p>
<p>The politician for whom the voter had voted got in by five hundred and
fifty-five votes. The voter read this next morning at breakfast, being in
a more cheery and expansive mood, and found something very fascinating not
merely in the fact of the majority, but even in the form of it. There was
something symbolic about the three exact figures; one felt it might be a
sort of motto or cipher. In the great book of seals and cloudy symbols
there is just such a thundering repetition. Six hundred and sixty-six was
the Mark of the Beast. Five hundred and fifty-five is the Mark of the Man;
the triumphant tribune and citizen. A number so symmetrical as that really
rises out of the region of science into the region of art. It is a
pattern, like the egg-and-dart ornament or the Greek key. One might edge a
wall-paper or fringe a robe with a recurring decimal. And while the voter
luxuriated in this light exactitude of the numbers, a thought crossed his
mind and he almost leapt to his feet. "Why, good heavens!" he cried. "I
won that election; and it was won by one vote! But for me it would have
been the despicable, broken-backed, disjointed, inharmonious figure five
hundred and fifty-four. The whole artistic point would have vanished. The
Mark of the Man would have disappeared from history. It was I who with a
masterful hand seized the chisel and carved the hieroglyph—complete
and perfect. I clutched the trembling hand of Destiny when it was about to
make a dull square four and forced it to make a nice curly five. Why, but
for me the Cosmos would have lost a coincidence!" After this outburst the
voter sat down and finished his breakfast.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0033" id="link2H_4_0033"></SPAN></p>
<h2> Ethandune </h2>
<p>Perhaps you do not know where Ethandune is. Nor do I; nor does anybody.
That is where the somewhat sombre fun begins. I cannot even tell you for
certain whether it is the name of a forest or a town or a hill. I can only
say that in any case it is of the kind that floats and is unfixed. If it
is a forest, it is one of those forests that march with a million legs,
like the walking trees that were the doom of Macbeth. If it is a town, it
is one of those towns that vanish, like a city of tents. If it is a hill,
it is a flying hill, like the mountain to which faith lends wings. Over a
vast dim region of England this dark name of Ethandune floats like an
eagle doubtful where to swoop and strike, and, indeed, there were birds of
prey enough over Ethandune, wherever it was. But now Ethandune itself has
grown as dark and drifting as the black drifts of the birds.</p>
<p>And yet without this word that you cannot fit with a meaning and hardly
with a memory, you would be sitting in a very different chair at this
moment and looking at a very different tablecloth. As a practical modern
phrase I do not commend it; if my private critics and correspondents in
whom I delight should happen to address me "G. K. Chesterton, Poste
Restante, Ethandune," I fear their letters would not come to hand. If two
hurried commercial travellers should agree to discuss a business matter at
Ethandune from 5 to 5.15, I am afraid they would grow old in the district
as white-haired wanderers. To put it plainly, Ethandune is anywhere and
nowhere in the western hills; it is an English mirage. And yet but for
this doubtful thing you would have probably no Daily News on Saturday and
certainly no church on Sunday. I do not say that either of these two
things is a benefit; but I do say that they are customs, and that you
would not possess them except through this mystery. You would not have
Christmas puddings, nor (probably) any puddings; you would not have Easter
eggs, probably not poached eggs, I strongly suspect not scrambled eggs,
and the best historians are decidedly doubtful about curried eggs. To cut
a long story short (the longest of all stories), you would not have any
civilization, far less any Christian civilization. And if in some moment
of gentle curiosity you wish to know why you are the polished sparkling,
rounded, and wholly satisfactory citizen which you obviously are, then I
can give you no more definite answer geographical or historical; but only
toll in your ears the tone of the uncaptured name—Ethandune.</p>
<p>I will try to state quite sensibly why it is as important as it is. And
yet even that is not easy. If I were to state the mere fact from the
history books, numbers of people would think it equally trivial and
remote, like some war of the Picts and Scots. The points perhaps might be
put in this way. There is a certain spirit in the world which breaks
everything off short. There may be magnificence in the smashing; but the
thing is smashed. There may be a certain splendour; but the splendour is
sterile: it abolishes all future splendours. I mean (to take a working
example), York Minster covered with flames might happen to be quite as
beautiful as York Minster covered with carvings. But the carvings produce
more carvings. The flames produce nothing but a little black heap. When
any act has this cul-de-sac quality it matters little whether it is done
by a book or a sword, by a clumsy battle-axe or a chemical bomb. The case
is the same with ideas. The pessimist may be a proud figure when he curses
all the stars; the optimist may be an even prouder figure when he blesses
them all. But the real test is not in the energy, but in the effect. When
the optimist has said, "All things are interesting," we are left free; we
can be interested as much or as little as we please. But when the
pessimist says, "No things are interesting," it may be a very witty
remark: but it is the last witty remark that can be made on the subject.
He has burnt his cathedral; he has had his blaze and the rest is ashes.
The sceptics, like bees, give their one sting and die. The pessimist must
be wrong, because he says the last word.</p>
<p>Now, this spirit that denies and that destroys had at one period of
history a dreadful epoch of military superiority. They did burn York
Minster, or at least, places of the same kind. Roughly speaking, from the
seventh century to the tenth, a dense tide of darkness, of chaos and
brainless cruelty, poured on these islands and on the western coasts of
the Continent, which well-nigh cut them off from all the white man's
culture for ever. And this is the final human test; that the varied chiefs
of that vague age were remembered or forgotten according to how they had
resisted this almost cosmic raid. Nobody thought of the modern nonsense
about races; everybody thought of the human race and its highest
achievements. Arthur was a Celt, and may have been a fabulous Celt; but he
was a fable on the right side. Charlemagne may have been a Gaul or a Goth,
but he was not a barbarian; he fought for the tradition against the
barbarians, the nihilists. And for this reason also, for this reason, in
the last resort, only, we call the saddest and in some ways the least
successful of the Wessex kings by the title of Alfred the Great. Alfred
was defeated by the barbarians again and again, he defeated the barbarians
again and again; but his victories were almost as vain as his defeats.
Fortunately he did not believe in the Time Spirit or the Trend of Things
or any such modern rubbish, and therefore kept pegging away. But while his
failures and his fruitless successes have names still in use (such as
Wilton, Basing, and Ashdown), that last epic battle which really broke the
barbarian has remained without a modern place or name. Except that it was
near Chippenham, where the Danes gave up their swords and were baptized,
no one can pick out certainly the place where you and I were saved from
being savages for ever.</p>
<p>But the other day under a wild sunset and moonrise I passed the place
which is best reputed as Ethandune, a high, grim upland, partly bare and
partly shaggy; like that savage and sacred spot in those great imaginative
lines about the demon lover and the waning moon. The darkness, the red
wreck of sunset, the yellow and lurid moon, the long fantastic shadows,
actually created that sense of monstrous incident which is the dramatic
side of landscape. The bare grey slopes seemed to rush downhill like
routed hosts; the dark clouds drove across like riven banners; and the
moon was like a golden dragon, like the Golden Dragon of Wessex.</p>
<p>As we crossed a tilt of the torn heath I saw suddenly between myself and
the moon a black shapeless pile higher than a house. The atmosphere was so
intense that I really thought of a pile of dead Danes, with some phantom
conqueror on the top of it. Fortunately I was crossing these wastes with a
friend who knew more history than I; and he told me that this was a barrow
older than Alfred, older than the Romans, older perhaps than the Britons;
and no man knew whether it was a wall or a trophy or a tomb. Ethandune is
still a drifting name; but it gave me a queer emotion to think that, sword
in hand, as the Danes poured with the torrents of their blood down to
Chippenham, the great king may have lifted up his head and looked at that
oppressive shape, suggestive of something and yet suggestive of nothing;
may have looked at it as we did, and understood it as little as we.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />