i cannot understand the people who take literature seriously; but i can love them, and i do. out of my love i warn them to keep clear of this book. it is a collection of crude and shapeless papers upon current or rather flying subjects; and they must be published pretty much as they stand. they were written, as a rule, at the last moment; they were handed in the moment before it was too late, and i do not think that our commonwealth would have been shaken to its foundations if they had been handed in the moment after. they must go out now, with all their imperfections on their head, or rather on mine; for their vices are too vital to be improved with a blue pencil, or with anything i can think of, except dynamite.

their chief vice is that so many of them are very serious; because i had no time to make them flippant. it is so easy to be solemn; it is so hard to be frivolous. let any honest reader shut his eyes for a few moments, and approaching the secret tribunal of his soul, ask himself whether he would really rather be asked in the next two hours to write the front page of the times, which is full of long leading articles, or the front page of tit-bits, which is full of short jokes. if the reader is the fine conscientious fellow i take him for, he will at once reply that he would rather on the spur of the moment write ten times articles than one tit-bits joke. responsibility, a heavy and cautious responsibility of speech, is the easiest thing in the world; anybody can do it. that is why so many tired, elderly, and wealthy men go in for politics. they are responsible, because they have not the strength of mind left to be irresponsible. it is more dignified to sit still than to dance the barn dance. it is also easier. so in these easy pages i keep myself on the whole on the level of the times: it is only occasionally that i leap upwards almost to the level of tit-bits.

i resume the defence of this indefensible book. these articles have another disadvantage arising from the scurry in which they were written; they are too long-winded and elaborate. one of the great disadvantages of hurry is that it takes such a long time. if i have to start for high-gate this day week, i may perhaps go the shortest way. if i have to start this minute, i shall almost certainly go the longest. in these essays (as i read them over) i feel frightfully annoyed with myself for not getting to the point more quickly; but i had not enough leisure to be quick. there are several maddening cases in which i took two or three pages in attempting to describe an attitude of which the essence could be expressed in an epigram; only there was no time for epigrams. i do not repent of one shade of opinion here expressed; but i feel that they might have been expressed so much more briefly and precisely. for instance, these pages contain a sort of recurring protest against the boast of certain writers that they are merely recent. they brag that their philosophy of the universe is the last philosophy or the new philosophy, or the advanced and progressive philosophy. i have said much against a mere modernism. when i use the word "modernism," i am not alluding specially to the current quarrel in the roman catholic church, though i am certainly astonished at any intellectual group accepting so weak and unphilosophical a name. it is incomprehensible to me that any thinker can calmly call himself a modernist; he might as well call himself a thursdayite. but apart altogether from that particular disturbance, i am conscious of a general irritation expressed against the people who boast of their advancement and modernity in the discussion of religion. but i never succeeded in saying the quite clear and obvious thing that is really the matter with modernism. the real objection to modernism is simply that it is a form of snobbishness. it is an attempt to crush a rational opponent not by reason, but by some mystery of superiority, by hinting that one is specially up to date or particularly "in the know." to flaunt the fact that we have had all the last books from germany is simply vulgar; like flaunting the fact that we have had all the last bonnets from paris. to introduce into philosophical discussions a sneer at a creed's antiquity is like introducing a sneer at a lady's age. it is caddish because it is irrelevant. the pure modernist is merely a snob; he cannot bear to be a month behind the fashion similarly i find that i have tried in these pages to express the real objection to philanthropists and have not succeeded. i have not seen the quite simple objection to the causes advocated by certain wealthy idealists; causes of which the cause called teetotalism is the strongest case. i have used many abusive terms about the thing, calling it puritanism, or superciliousness, or aristocracy; but i have not seen and stated the quite simple objection to philanthropy; which is that it is religious persecution. religious persecution does not consist in thumbscrews or fires of smithfield; the essence of religious persecution is this: that the man who happens to have material power in the state, either by wealth or by official position, should govern his fellow-citizens not according to their religion or philosophy, but according to his own. if, for instance, there is such a thing as a vegetarian nation; if there is a great united mass of men who wish to live by the vegetarian morality, then i say in the emphatic words of the arrogant french marquis before the french revolution, "let them eat grass." perhaps that french oligarch was a humanitarian; most oligarchs are. perhaps when he told the peasants to eat grass he was recommending to them the hygienic simplicity of a vegetarian restaurant. but that is an irrelevant, though most fascinating, speculation. the point here is that if a nation is really vegetarian let its government force upon it the whole horrible weight of vegetarianism. let its government give the national guests a state vegetarian banquet. let its government, in the most literal and awful sense of the words, give them beans. that sort of tyranny is all very well; for it is the people tyrannising over all the persons. but "temperance reformers" are like a small group of vegetarians who should silently and systematically act on an ethical assumption entirely unfamiliar to the mass of the people. they would always be giving peerages to greengrocers. they would always be appointing parliamentary commissions to enquire into the private life of butchers. whenever they found a man quite at their mercy, as a pauper or a convict or a lunatic, they would force him to add the final touch to his inhuman isolation by becoming a vegetarian. all the meals for school children will be vegetarian meals. all the state public houses will be vegetarian public houses. there is a very strong case for vegetarianism as compared with teetotalism. drinking one glass of beer cannot by any philosophy be drunkenness; but killing one animal can, by this philosophy, be murder. the objection to both processes is not that the two creeds, teetotal and vegetarian, are not admissible; it is simply that they are not admitted. the thing is religious persecution because it is not based on the existing religion of the democracy. these people ask the poor to accept in practice what they know perfectly well that the poor would not accept in theory. that is the very definition of religious persecution. i was against the tory attempt to force upon ordinary englishmen a catholic theology in which they do not believe. i am even more against the attempt to force upon them a mohamedan morality which they actively deny.

again, in the case of anonymous journalism i seem to have said a great deal without getting out the point very clearly. anonymous journalism is dangerous, and is poisonous in our existing life simply because it is so rapidly becoming an anonymous life. that is the horrible thing about our contemporary atmosphere. society is becoming a secret society. the modern tyrant is evil because of his elusiveness. he is more nameless than his slave. he is not more of a bully than the tyrants of the past; but he is more of a coward. the rich publisher may treat the poor poet better or worse than the old master workman treated the old apprentice. but the apprentice ran away and the master ran after him. nowadays it is the poet who pursues and tries in vain to fix the fact of responsibility. it is the publisher who runs away. the clerk of mr. solomon gets the sack: the beautiful greek slave of the sultan suliman also gets the sack; or the sack gets her. but though she is concealed under the black waves of the bosphorus, at least her destroyer is not concealed. he goes behind golden trumpets riding on a white elephant. but in the case of the clerk it is almost as difficult to know where the dismissal comes from as to know where the clerk goes to. it may be mr. solomon or mr. solomon's manager, or mr. solomon's rich aunt in cheltenham, or mr. soloman's rich creditor in berlin. the elaborate machinery which was once used to make men responsible is now used solely in order to shift the responsibility. people talk about the pride of tyrants; but we in this age are not suffering from the pride of tyrants. we are suffering from the shyness of tyrants; from the shrinking modesty of tyrants. therefore we must not encourage leader-writers to be shy; we must not inflame their already exaggerated modesty. rather we must attempt to lure them to be vain and ostentatious; so that through ostentation they may at last find their way to honesty.

the last indictment against this book is the worst of all. it is simply this: that if all goes well this book will be unintelligible gibberish. for it is mostly concerned with attacking attitudes which are in their nature accidental and incapable of enduring. brief as is the career of such a book as this, it may last just twenty minutes longer than most of the philosophies that it attacks. in the end it will not matter to us whether we wrote well or ill; whether we fought with flails or reeds. it will matter to us greatly on what side we fought.