here, it may be said, my book ends just where it ought to begin. i have said that the strong centers of modern english property must swiftly or slowly be broken up, if even the idea of property is to remain among englishmen. there are two ways in which it could be done, a cold administration by quite detached officials, which is called collectivism, or a personal distribution, so as to produce what is called peasant proprietorship. i think the latter solution the finer and more fully human, because it makes each man as somebody blamed somebody for saying of the pope, a sort of small god. a man on his own turf tastes eternity or, in other words, will give ten minutes more work than is required. but i believe i am justified in shutting the door on this vista of argument, instead of opening it. for this book is not designed to prove the case for peasant proprietorship, but to prove the case against modern sages who turn reform to a routine. the whole of this book has been a rambling and elaborate urging of one purely ethical fact. and if by any chance it should happen that there are still some who do not quite see what that point is, i will end with one plain parable, which is none the worse for being also a fact.
a little while ago certain doctors and other persons permitted by modern law to dictate to their shabbier fellow-citizens, sent out an order that all little girls should have their hair cut short. i mean, of course, all little girls whose parents were poor. many very unhealthy habits are common among rich little girls, but it will be long before any doctors interfere forcibly with them. now, the case for this particular interference was this, that the poor are pressed down from above into such stinking and suffocating underworlds of squalor, that poor people must not be allowed to have hair, because in their case it must mean lice in the hair. therefore, the doctors propose to abolish the hair. it never seems to have occurred to them to abolish the lice. yet it could be done. as is common in most modern discussions the unmentionable thing is the pivot of the whole discussion. it is obvious to any christian man (that is, to any man with a free soul) that any coercion applied to a cabman’s daughter ought, if possible, to be applied to a cabinet minister’s daughter. i will not ask why the doctors do not, as a matter of fact apply their rule to a cabinet minister’s daughter. i will not ask, because i know. they do not because they dare not. but what is the excuse they would urge, what is the plausible argument they would use, for thus cutting and clipping poor children and not rich? their argument would be that the disease is more likely to be in the hair of poor people than of rich. and why? because the poor children are forced (against all the instincts of the highly domestic working classes) to crowd together in close rooms under a wildly inefficient system of public instruction; and because in one out of the forty children there may be offense. and why? because the poor man is so ground down by the great rents of the great ground landlords that his wife often has to work as well as he. therefore she has no time to look after the children, therefore one in forty of them is dirty. because the workingman has these two persons on top of him, the landlord sitting (literally) on his stomach, and the schoolmaster sitting (literally) on his head, the workingman must allow his little girl’s hair, first to be neglected from poverty, next to be poisoned by promiscuity, and, lastly, to be abolished by hygiene. he, perhaps, was proud of his little girl’s hair. but he does not count.
upon this simple principle (or rather precedent) the sociological doctor drives gayly ahead. when a crapulous tyranny crushes men down into the dirt, so that their very hair is dirty, the scientific course is clear. it would be long and laborious to cut off the heads of the tyrants; it is easier to cut off the hair of the slaves. in the same way, if it should ever happen that poor children, screaming with toothache, disturbed any schoolmaster or artistic gentleman, it would be easy to pull out all the teeth of the poor; if their nails were disgustingly dirty, their nails could be plucked out; if their noses were indecently blown, their noses could be cut off. the appearance of our humbler fellow-citizen could be quite strikingly simplified before we had done with him. but all this is not a bit wilder than the brute fact that a doctor can walk into the house of a free man, whose daughter’s hair may be as clean as spring flowers, and order him to cut it off. it never seems to strike these people that the lesson of lice in the slums is the wrongness of slums, not the wrongness of hair. hair is, to say the least of it, a rooted thing. its enemy (like the other insects and oriental armies of whom we have spoken) sweep upon us but seldom. in truth, it is only by eternal institutions like hair that we can test passing institutions like empires. if a house is so built as to knock a man’s head off when he enters it, it is built wrong.
the mob can never rebel unless it is conservative, at least enough to have conserved some reasons for rebelling. it is the most awful thought in all our anarchy, that most of the ancient blows struck for freedom would not be struck at all to-day, because of the obscuration of the clean, popular customs from which they came. the insult that brought down the hammer of wat tyler might now be called a medical examination. that which virginius loathed and avenged as foul slavery might now be praised as free love. the cruel taunt of foulon, “let them eat grass,” might now be represented as the dying cry of an idealistic vegetarian. those great scissors of science that would snip off the curls of the poor little school children are ceaselessly snapping closer and closer to cut off all the corners and fringes of the arts and honors of the poor. soon they will be twisting necks to suit clean collars, and hacking feet to fit new boots. it never seems to strike them that the body is more than raiment; that the sabbath was made for man; that all institutions shall be judged and damned by whether they have fitted the normal flesh and spirit. it is the test of political sanity to keep your head. it is the test of artistic sanity to keep your hair on.
now the whole parable and purpose of these last pages, and indeed of all these pages, is this: to assert that we must instantly begin all over again, and begin at the other end. i begin with a little girl’s hair. that i know is a good thing at any rate. whatever else is evil, the pride of a good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good. it is one of those adamantine tendernesses which are the touchstones of every age and race. if other things are against it, other things must go down. if landlords and laws and sciences are against it, landlords and laws and sciences must go down. with the red hair of one she-urchin in the gutter i will set fire to all modern civilization. because a girl should have long hair, she should have clean hair; because she should have clean hair, she should not have an unclean home: because she should not have an unclean home, she should have a free and leisured mother; because she should have a free mother, she should not have an usurious landlord; because there should not be an usurious landlord, there should be a redistribution of property; because there should be a redistribution of property, there shall be a revolution. that little urchin with the gold-red hair, whom i have just watched toddling past my house, she shall not be lopped and lamed and altered; her hair shall not be cut short like a convict’s; no, all the kingdoms of the earth shall be hacked about and mutilated to suit her. she is the human and sacred image; all around her the social fabric shall sway and split and fall; the pillars of society shall be shaken, and the roofs of ages come rushing down, and not one hair of her head shall be harmed.
the end
