old gardener, to whom in her distress of mind Caterina fled for refuge, is a similar portrait -lacking perhaps in the intimate knowledge which would make him completely sympathetic, yet seeking by every means in his power to soothe where he could not comprehend. More shadowy are the corresponding persons in Hardy's novels, as a rule, yet one recollects such a figure as the widow Edlin, of Jude the Obscure, crude, coarse and jarring as she is, as none the less a study of a genuine, and sincere, if unpleasant, type. So also is the case of Drusilla Fawley, with her crotchets and eccentricities, and her superstitious insistence that the Fawleys were never made for marriage. Old Dewy, his son Reuben, and the other members of the Mellstock choir, are delightful miniatures, perfect in their proportion and coloring. The Christmas waits of Egdon cannot be forgotten, so life-like are they in their fashion; the only comparison which one can make with them is with the sturdy, glorious group of Athenian mechanicals,

Snug the Joiner, Bottom the Weaver, Starveling the Tailor, and their companions.

It is a happiness that old age presents itself in these colors and under this guise. And that Hardy and George Eliot should be at one in these details explains at least one curious fact, that one of Hardy's earliest novels, published anonymously, should have been attributed to her. The euphemistic instinct which seeks to present the fairest aspect of the latter stages of life is a sound and healthy one, and one which modern literature has too often failed to respect. However warped and destructive may be his view of the waxing generation, Hardy loyally preserves the more gracious phases of the old. To that extent he is "Victorian," as was George Eliot. To that extent also he is truly realist, and interpreter of human character and dignity.

VIII

RADICAL AND REACTIONARY

N the preceding essays we have examined

IN

the salient points of contrast between two representatives, one of a discarded social theory, the other of the tendencies which have become the main streams of social development within the past twenty-five years. Such a contrast would be merely curious and interesting, were it not for the conclusions which it forces upon us. The questions which it raises are not alone those issues of personal and individual life which make the framework of literary speculation, but the larger problems of social aims and social advances. We are faced with two views of life, vitally opposed to one another, not only in their theory but in their observation regarding humanOne of these has received the acclaim

kind.

of the new generation; has been held to be the expression, exaggerated no doubt, yet in the main fair, of the type of individualism which should be allowed to govern the earth. The other has been discarded with other useless and cumbersome relics of a somewhat discreditable intellectual past. Our modern cant disclaims all mention of worth in a reactionary view of life; admits, with a smile and a shrug of self-complacency, that undoubtedly the reactionaries of to-day were the reformers of the day before, but adds that its own advances have left even the laggards beyond reach of the older message.

To those who think soberly and long, the question is not so readily answered. And the suggested lines of thought lead still farther afield, beyond the domain of literature and sociology, and into the abstract region of philosophical discussion. Eventually, the problem is formulated: What is the essence of the radical position, and how does it differ from the reactionary ideal?

In its broad aspects the distinction is essen

tially a simple one. The reactionary position is always the easiest of the two possible courses, while the radical attitude is instantly beşet with difficulties. This, however, does not tell the whole story, for it must further be remembered that as radicalism and reaction are states of mind, not specific opinions, a view upon a given matter is not of necessity germane. The veriest reactionary may none the less be far ahead of his generation, and the radical may appear to be one of its stragglers. For the reactionary, accepting as he does the easiest view of life that presents itself, may also hold the most advanced opinions of the day, by virtue of his very backwardness. We are familiar with persons who hold highly liberalized religious beliefs, by inheritance, as it were, not by reason of the intellectual pioneering which alone entitles a man to the reputation for radical thought. The analogy holds in other departments of opinion equally. It will be observed, therefore, that there is no incompatibility between the spirit of reaction and advanced opinion. On the other hand,