<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0040" id="link2H_4_0040"></SPAN></p>
<h2> The High Plains </h2>
<p>By high plains I do not mean table-lands; table-lands do not interest one
very much. They seem to involve the bore of a climb without the pleasure
of a peak. Also they arc vaguely associated with Asia and those enormous
armies that eat up everything like locusts, as did the army of Xerxes;
with emperors from nowhere spreading their battalions everywhere; with the
white elephants and the painted horses, the dark engines and the dreadful
mounted bowmen of the moving empires of the East, with all that evil
insolence in short that rolled into Europe in the youth of Nero, and after
having been battered about and abandoned by one Christian nation after
another, turned up in England with Disraeli and was christened (or rather
paganed) Imperialism.</p>
<p>Also (it may be necessary to explain) I do not mean "high planes" such as
the Theosophists and the Higher Thought Centres talk about. They spell
theirs differently; but I will not have theirs in any spelling. They, I
know, are always expounding how this or that person is on a lower plane,
while they (the speakers) are on a higher plane: sometimes they will
almost tell you what plane, as "5994" or "Plane F, sub-plane 304." I do
not mean this sort of height either. My religion says nothing about such
planes except that all men are on one plane and that by no means a high
one. There are saints indeed in my religion: but a saint only means a man
who really knows he is a sinner.</p>
<p>Why then should I talk of the plains as high? I do it for a rather
singular reason, which I will illustrate by a parallel. When I was at
school learning all the Greek I have ever forgotten, I was puzzled by the
phrase OINON MELAN that is "black wine," which continually occurred. I
asked what it meant, and many most interesting and convincing answers were
given. It was pointed out that we know little of the actual liquid drunk
by the Greeks; that the analogy of modern Greek wines may suggest that it
was dark and sticky, perhaps a sort of syrup always taken with water; that
archaic language about colour is always a little dubious, as where Homer
speaks of the "wine-dark sea" and so on. I was very properly satisfied,
and never thought of the matter again; until one day, having a decanter of
claret in front of me, I happened to look at it. I then perceived that
they called wine black because it is black. Very thin, diluted, or held-up
abruptly against a flame, red wine is red; but seen in body in most normal
shades and semi-lights red wine is black, and therefore was called so.</p>
<p>On the same principles I call the plains high because the plains always
are high; they are always as high as we are. We talk of climbing a
mountain crest and looking down at the plain; but the phrase is an
illusion of our arrogance. It is impossible even to look down at the
plain. For the plain itself rises as we rise. It is not merely true that
the higher we climb the wider and wider is spread out below us the wealth
of the world; it is not merely that the devil or some other respectable
guide for tourists takes us to the top of an exceeding high mountain and
shows us all the kingdoms of the earth. It is more than that, in our real
feeling of it. It is that in a sense the whole world rises with us
roaring, and accompanies us to the crest like some clanging chorus of
eagles. The plains rise higher and higher like swift grey walls piled up
against invisible invaders. And however high a peak you climb, the plain
is still as high as the peak.</p>
<p>The mountain tops are only noble because from them we are privileged to
behold the plains. So the only value in any man being superior is that he
may have a superior admiration for the level and the common. If there is
any profit in a place craggy and precipitous it is only because from the
vale it is not easy to see all the beauty of the vale; because when
actually in the flats one cannot see their sublime and satisfying
flatness. If there is any value in being educated or eminent (which is
doubtful enough) it is only because the best instructed man may feel most
swiftly and certainly the splendour of the ignorant and the simple: the
full magnificence of that mighty human army in the plains. The general
goes up to the hill to look at his soldiers, not to look down at his
soldiers. He withdraws himself not because his regiment is too small to be
touched, but because it is too mighty to be seen. The chief climbs with
submission and goes higher with great humility; since in order to take a
bird's eye view of everything, he must become small and distant like a
bird.</p>
<p>The most marvellous of those mystical cavaliers who wrote intricate and
exquisite verse in England in the seventeenth century, I mean Henry
Vaughan, put the matter in one line, intrinsically immortal and
practically forgotten—</p>
<p>"Oh holy hope and high humility."</p>
<p>That adjective "high" is not only one of the sudden and stunning
inspirations of literature; it is also one of the greatest and gravest
definitions of moral science. However far aloft a man may go, he is still
looking up, not only at God (which is obvious), but in a manner at men
also: seeing more and more all that is towering and mysterious in the
dignity and destiny of the lonely house of Adam. I wrote some part of
these rambling remarks on a high ridge of rock and turf overlooking a
stretch of the central counties; the rise was slight enough in reality,
but the immediate ascent had been so steep and sudden that one could not
avoid the fancy that on reaching the summit one would look down at the
stars. But one did not look down at the stars, but rather up at the
cities; seeing as high in heaven the palace town of Alfred like a lit
sunset cloud, and away in the void spaces, like a planet in eclipse,
Salisbury. So, it may be hoped, until we die you and I will always look up
rather than down at the labours and the habitations of our race; we will
lift up our eyes to the valleys from whence cometh our help. For from
every special eminence and beyond every sublime landmark, it is good for
our souls to see only vaster and vaster visions of that dizzy and divine
level; and to behold from our crumbling turrets the tall plains of
equality.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0041" id="link2H_4_0041"></SPAN></p>
<h2> The Chorus </h2>
<p>One of the most marked instances of the decline of true popular sympathy
is the gradual disappearance in our time of the habit of singing in
chorus. Even when it is done nowadays it is done tentatively and sometimes
inaudibly; apparently upon some preposterous principle (which I have never
clearly grasped) that singing is an art. In the new aristocracy of the
drawing-room a lady is actually asked whether she sings. In the old
democracy of the dinner table a man was simply told to sing, and he had to
do it. I like the atmosphere of those old banquets. I like to think of my
ancestors, middle-aged or venerable gentlemen, all sitting round a table
and explaining that they would never forget old days or friends with a
rumpty-iddity-iddity, or letting it be known that they would die for
England's glory with their tooral ooral, etc. Even the vices of that
society (which 'sometimes, I fear, rendered the narrative portions of the
song almost as cryptic and inarticulate as the chorus) were displayed with
a more human softening than the same vices in the saloon bars of our own
time. I greatly prefer Mr. Richard Swiveller to Mr. Stanley Ortheris. I
prefer the man who exceeded in rosy wine in order that the wing of
friendship might never moult a feather to the man who exceeds quite as
much in whiskies and sodas, but declares all the time that he's for number
one, and that you don't catch him paying for other men's drinks. The old
men of pleasure (with their tooral ooral) got at least some social and
communal virtue out of pleasure. The new men of pleasure (without the
slightest vestige of a tooral ooral) are simply hermits of irreligion
instead of religion, anchorites of atheism, and they might as well be
drugging themselves with hashish or opium in a wilderness.</p>
<p>But the chorus of the old songs had another use besides this obvious one
of asserting the popular element in the arts. The chorus of a song, even
of a comic song, has the same purpose as the chorus in a Greek tragedy. It
reconciles men to the gods. It connects this one particular tale with the
cosmos and the philosophy of common things, Thus we constantly find in the
old ballads, especially the pathetic ballads, some refrain about the grass
growing green, or the birds singing, or the woods being merry in spring.
These are windows opened in the house of tragedy; momentary glimpses of
larger and quieter scenes, of more ancient and enduring landscapes. Many
of the country songs describing crime and death have refrains of a
startling joviality like cock crow, just as if the whole company were
coming in with a shout of protest against so sombre a view of existence.
There is a long and gruesome ballad called "The Berkshire Tragedy," about
a murder committed by a jealous sister, for the consummation of which a
wicked miller is hanged, and the chorus (which should come in a kind of
burst) runs:</p>
<p>"And I'll be true to my love<br/>
If my love'll be true to me."<br/></p>
<p>The very reasonable arrangement here suggested is introduced, I think, as
a kind of throw back to the normal, a reminder that even "The Berkshire
Tragedy" does not fill the whole of Berkshire. The poor young lady is
drowned, and the wicked miller (to whom we may have been affectionately
attached) is hanged; but still a ruby kindles in the vine, and many a
garden by the water blows. Not that Omar's type of hedonistic resignation
is at all the same as the breezy impatience of the Berkshire refrain; but
they are alike in so far as they gaze out beyond the particular
complication to more open plains of peace. The chorus of the ballad looks
past the drowning maiden and the miller's gibbet, and sees the lanes full
of lovers.</p>
<p>This use of the chorus to humanize and dilute a dark story is strongly
opposed to the modern view of art. Modern art has to be what is called
"intense." It is not easy to define being intense; but, roughly speaking,
it means saying only one thing at a time, and saying it wrong. Modern
tragic writers have to write short stories; if they wrote long stories (as
the man said of philosophy) cheerfulness would creep in. Such stories are
like stings; brief, but purely painful. And doubtless they bore some
resemblance to some lives lived under our successful scientific
civilization; lives which tend in any case to be painful, and in many
cases to be brief. But when the artistic people passed beyond the poignant
anecdote and began to write long books full of poignancy, then the reading
public began to rebel and to demand the recall of romance. The long books
about the black poverty of cities became quite insupportable. The
Berkshire tragedy had a chorus; but the London tragedy has no chorus.
Therefore people welcomed the return of adventurous novels about alien
places and times, the trenchant and swordlike stories of Stevenson. But I
am not narrowly on the side of the romantics. I think that glimpses of the
gloom of our civilization ought to be recorded. I think that the
bewilderments of the solitary and sceptical soul ought to be preserved, if
it be only for the pity (yes, and the admiration) of a happier time. But I
wish that there were some way in which the chorus could enter. I wish that
at the end of each chapter of stiff agony or insane terror the choir of
humanity could come in with a crash of music and tell both the reader and
the author that this is not the whole of human experience. Let them go on
recording hard scenes or hideous questions, but let there be a jolly
refrain.</p>
<p>Thus we might read: "As Honoria laid down the volume of Ibsen and went
wearily to her window, she realized that life must be to her not only
harsher, but colder than it was to the comfortable and the weak. With her
tooral ooral, etc.;" or, again: "The young curate smiled grimly as he
listened to his great-grandmother's last words. He knew only too well that
since Phogg's discovery of the hereditary hairiness of goats religion
stood on a very different basis from that which it had occupied in his
childhood. With his rumpty-iddity, rumpty-iddity;" and so on. Or we might
read: "Uriel Maybloom stared gloomily down at his sandals, as he realized
for the first time how senseless and anti-social are all ties between man
and woman; how each must go his or her way without any attempt to arrest
the head-long separation of their souls." And then would come in one
deafening chorus of everlasting humanity "But I'll be true to my love, if
my love'll be true to me."</p>
<p>In the records of the first majestic and yet fantastic developments of the
foundation of St. Francis of Assisi is an account of a certain Blessed
Brother Giles. I have forgotten most of it, but I remember one fact: that
certain students of theology came to ask him whether he believed in free
will, and, if so, how he could reconcile it with necessity. On hearing the
question St. Francis's follower reflected a little while and then seized a
fiddle and began capering and dancing about the garden, playing a wild
tune and generally expressing a violent and invigorating indifference. The
tune is not recorded, but it is the eternal chorus of mankind, that
modifies all the arts and mocks all the individualisms, like the laughter
and thunder of some distant sea.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0042" id="link2H_4_0042"></SPAN></p>
<h2> A Romance of the Marshes </h2>
<p>In books as a whole marshes are described as desolate and colourless,
great fields of clay or sedge, vast horizons of drab or grey. But this,
like many other literary associations, is a piece of poetical injustice.
Monotony has nothing to do with a place; monotony, either in its sensation
or its infliction, is simply the quality of a person. There are no dreary
sights; there are only dreary sightseers. It is a matter of taste, that is
of personality, whether marshes are monotonous; but it is a matter of fact
and science that they are not monochrome. The tops of high mountains (I am
told) are all white; the depths of primeval caverns (I am also told) are
all dark. The sea will be grey or blue for weeks together; and the desert,
I have been led to believe, is the colour of sand. The North Pole (if we
found it) would be white with cracks of blue; and Endless Space (if we
went there) would, I suppose, be black with white spots. If any of these
were counted of a monotonous colour I could well understand it; but on the
contrary, they are always spoken of as if they had the gorgeous and
chaotic colours of a cosmic kaleidoscope. Now exactly where you can find
colours like those of a tulip garden or a stained-glass window, is in
those sunken and sodden lands which are always called dreary. Of course
the great tulip gardens did arise in Holland; which is simply one immense
marsh. There is nothing in Europe so truly tropical as marshes. Also, now
I come to think of it, there are few places so agreeably marshy as
tropics. At any rate swamp and fenlands in England are always especially
rich in gay grasses or gorgeous fungoids; and seem sometimes as glorious
as a transformation scene; but also as unsubstantial. In these splendid
scenes it is always very easy to put your foot through the scenery. You
may sink up to your armpits; but you will sink up to your armpits in
flowers. I do not deny that I myself am of a sort that sinks—except
in the matter of spirits. I saw in the west counties recently a swampy
field of great richness and promise. If I had stepped on it I have no
doubt at all that I should have vanished; that aeons hence the complete
fossil of a fat Fleet Street journalist would be found in that compressed
clay. I only claim that it would be found in some attitude of energy, or
even of joy. But the last point is the most important of all, for as I
imagined myself sinking up to the neck in what looked like a solid green
field, I suddenly remembered that this very thing must have happened to
certain interesting pirates quite a thousand years ago.</p>
<p>For, as it happened, the flat fenland in which I so nearly sunk was the
fenland round the Island of Athelney, which is now an island in the fields
and no longer in the waters. But on the abrupt hillock a stone still
stands to say that this was that embattled islet in the Parrett where King
Alfred held his last fort against the foreign invaders, in that war that
nearly washed us as far from civilization as the Solomon Islands. Here he
defended the island called Athelney as he afterwards did his best to
defend the island called England. For the hero always defends an island, a
thing beleaguered and surrounded, like the Troy of Hector. And the highest
and largest humanitarian can only rise to defending the tiny island called
the earth.</p>
<p>One approaches the island of Athelney along a low long road like an
interminable white string stretched across the flats, and lined with those
dwarfish trees that are elvish in their very dullness. At one point of the
journey (I cannot conceive why) one is arrested by a toll gate at which
one has to pay threepence. Perhaps it is a distorted tradition of those
dark ages. Perhaps Alfred, with the superior science of comparative
civilization, had calculated the economics of Denmark down to a halfpenny.
Perhaps a Dane sometimes came with twopence, sometimes even with
twopence-halfpenny, after the sack of many cities even with twopence three
farthings; but never with threepence. Whether or no it was a permanent
barrier to the barbarians it was only a temporary barrier to me. I
discovered three large and complete coppers in various parts of my person,
and I passed on along that strangely monotonous and strangely fascinating
path. It is not merely fanciful to feel that the place expresses itself
appropriately as the place where the great Christian King hid himself from
the heathen. Though a marshland is always open it is still curiously
secret. Fens, like deserts, are large things very apt to be mislaid. These
flats feared to be overlooked in a double sense; the small trees crouched
and the whole plain seemed lying on its face, as men do when shells burst.
The little path ran fearlessly forward; but it seemed to run on all fours.
Everything in that strange countryside seemed to be lying low, as if to
avoid the incessant and rattling rain of the Danish arrows. There were
indeed hills of no inconsiderable height quite within call; but those
pools and flats of the old Parrett seemed to separate themselves like a
central and secret sea; and in the midst of them stood up the rock of
Athelney as isolate as it was to Alfred. And all across this recumbent and
almost crawling country there ran the glory of the low wet lands; grass
lustrous and living like the plumage of some universal bird; the flowers
as gorgeous as bonfires and the weeds more beautiful than the flowers. One
stooped to stroke the grass, as if the earth were all one kind beast that
could feel.</p>
<p>Why does no decent person write an historical novel about Alfred and his
fort in Athelney, in the marshes of the Parrett? Not a very historical
novel. Not about his Truth-telling (please) or his founding the British
Empire, or the British Navy, or the Navy League, or whichever it was he
founded. Not about the Treaty of Wedmore and whether it ought (as an
eminent historian says) to be called the Pact of Chippenham. But an
aboriginal romance for boys about the bare, bald, beatific fact that a
great hero held his fort in an island in a river. An island is fine
enough, in all conscience or piratic unconscientiousness, but an island in
a river sounds like the beginning of the greatest adventure story on
earth. "Robinson Crusoe" is really a great tale, but think of Robinson
Crusoe's feelings if he could have actually seen England and Spain from
his inaccessible isle! "Treasure Island" is a spirit of genius: but what
treasure could an island contain to compare with Alfred? And then consider
the further elements of juvenile romance in an island that was more of an
island than it looked. Athelney was masked with marshes; many a heavy
harnessed Viking may have started bounding across a meadow only to find
himself submerged in a sea. I feel the full fictitious splendour spreading
round me; I see glimpses of a great romance that will never be written. I
see a sudden shaft quivering in one of the short trees. I see a red-haired
man wading madly among the tall gold flowers of the marsh, leaping onward
and lurching lower. I see another shaft stand quivering in his throat. I
cannot see any more, because, as I have delicately suggested, I am a heavy
man. This mysterious marshland does not sustain me, and I sink into its
depths with a bubbling groan.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />