He　has　come　to　the　most　dreadful　conclusion　a　literary　man　can
  come　to；　the　conclusion　that　the　ordinary　view　is　the　right　one。
  It　is　only　the　last　and　wildest　kind　of　courage　that　can　stand
  on　a　tower　before　ten　thousand　people　and　tell　them　that　twice
  two　is　four。
  Mr。　H。　G。　Wells　exists　at　present　in　a　gay　and　exhilarating　progress
  of　conservativism。　　He　is　finding　out　more　and　more　that　conventions；
  though　silent；　are　alive。　　As　good　an　example　as　any　of　this
  humility　and　sanity　of　his　may　be　found　in　his　change　of　view
  on　the　subject　of　science　and　marriage。　　He　once　held；　I　believe；
  the　opinion　which　some　singular　sociologists　still　hold；
  that　human　creatures　could　successfully　be　paired　and　bred　after
  the　manner　of　dogs　or　horses。　　He　no　longer　holds　that　view。
  Not　only　does　he　no　longer　hold　that　view；　but　he　has　written　about　it
  in　〃Mankind　in　the　Making〃　with　such　smashing　sense　and　humour；　that　I
  find　it　difficult　to　believe　that　anybody　else　can　hold　it　either。
  It　is　true　that　his　chief　objection　to　the　proposal　is　that　it　is
  physically　impossible；　which　seems　to　me　a　very　slight　objection；
  and　almost　negligible　compared　with　the　others。　　The　one　objection
  to　scientific　marriage　which　is　worthy　of　final　attention　is　simply
  that　such　a　thing　could　only　be　imposed　on　unthinkable　slaves
  and　cowards。　　I　do　not　know　whether　the　scientific　marriage…mongers
  are　right　（as　they　say）　or　wrong　（as　Mr。　Wells　says）　in　saying
  that　medical　supervision　would　produce　strong　and　healthy　men。
  I　am　only　certain　that　if　it　did；　the　first　act　of　the　strong
  and　healthy　men　would　be　to　smash　the　medical　supervision。
  The　mistake　of　all　that　medical　talk　lies　in　the　very　fact　that　it
  connects　the　idea　of　health　with　the　idea　of　care。　　What　has　health
  to　do　with　care？　　Health　has　to　do　with　carelessness。　　In　special
  and　abnormal　cases　it　is　necessary　to　have　care。　　When　we　are　peculiarly
  unhealthy　it　may　be　necessary　to　be　careful　in　order　to　be　healthy。
  But　even　then　we　are　only　trying　to　be　healthy　in　order　to　be　careless。
  If　we　are　doctors　we　are　speaking　to　exceptionally　sick　men；
  and　they　ought　to　be　told　to　be　careful。　　But　when　we　are　sociologists
  we　are　addressing　the　normal　man；　we　are　addressing　humanity。
  And　humanity　ought　to　be　told　to　be　recklessness　itself。
  For　all　the　fundamental　functions　of　a　healthy　man　ought　emphatically
  to　be　performed　with　pleasure　and　for　pleasure；　they　emphatically
  ought　not　to　be　performed　with　precaution　or　for　precaution。
  A　man　ought　to　eat　because　he　has　a　good　appetite　to　satisfy；
  and　emphatically　not　because　he　has　a　body　to　sustain。　　A　man　ought
  to　take　exercise　not　because　he　is　too　fat；　but　because　he　loves　foils
  or　horses　or　high　mountains；　and　loves　them　for　their　own　sake。
  And　a　man　ought　to　marry　because　he　has　fallen　in　love；
  and　emphatically　not　because　the　world　requires　to　be　populated。
  The　food　will　really　renovate　his　tissues　as　long　as　he　is　not　thinking
  about　his　tissues。　　The　exercise　will　really　get　him　into　training
  so　long　as　he　is　thinking　about　something　else。　　And　the　marriage　will
  really　stand　some　chance　of　producing　a　generous…blooded　generation
  if　it　had　its　origin　in　its　own　natural　and　generous　excitement。
  It　is　the　first　law　of　health　that　our　necessities　should　not　be
  accepted　as　necessities；　they　should　be　accepted　as　luxuries。
  Let　us；　then；　be　careful　about　the　small　things；　such　as　a　scratch
  or　a　slight　illness；　or　anything　that　can　be　managed　with　care。
  But　in　the　name　of　all　sanity；　let　us　be　careless　about　the
  important　things；　such　as　marriage；　or　the　fountain　of　our　very
  life　will　fail。
  Mr。　Wells；　however；　is　not　quite　clear　enough　of　the　narrower
  scientific　outlook　to　see　that　there　are　some　things　which　actually
  ought　not　to　be　scientific。　　He　is　still　slightly　affected　with
  the　great　scientific　fallacy；　I　mean　the　habit　of　beginning　not
  with　the　human　soul；　which　is　the　first　thing　a　man　learns　about；
  but　with　some　such　thing　as　protoplasm；　which　is　about　the　last。
  The　one　defect　in　his　splendid　mental　equipment　is　that　he　does
  not　sufficiently　allow　for　the　stuff　or　material　of　men。
  In　his　new　Utopia　he　says；　for　instance；　that　a　chief　point　of
  the　Utopia　will　be　a　disbelief　in　original　sin。　　If　he　had　begun
  with　the　human　soulthat　is；　if　he　had　begun　on　himselfhe　would
  have　found　original　sin　almost　the　first　thing　to　be　believed　in。
  He　would　have　found；　to　put　the　matter　shortly；　that　a　permanent
  possibility　of　selfishness　arises　from　the　mere　fact　of　having　a　self；
  and　not　from　any　accidents　of　education　or　ill…treatment。　And
  the　weakness　of　all　Utopias　is　this；　that　they　take　the　greatest
  difficulty　of　man　and　assume　it　to　be　overcome；　and　then　give
  an　elaborate　account　of　the　overcoming　of　the　smaller　ones。
  They　first　assume　that　no　man　will　want　more　than　his　share；
  and　then　are　very　ingenious　in　explaining　whether　his　share
  will　be　delivered　by　motor…car　or　balloon。　　And　an　even　stronger
  example　of　Mr。　Wells's　indifference　to　the　human　psychology　can
  be　found　in　his　cosmopolitanism；　the　abolition　in　his　Utopia　of　all
  patriotic　boundaries。　　He　says　in　his　innocent　way　that　Utopia
  must　be　a　world…state；　or　else　people　might　make　war　on　it。
  It　does　not　seem　to　occur　to　him　that；　for　a　good　many　of　us；　if　it　were
  a　world…state　we　should　still　make　war　on　it　to　the　end　of　the　world。
  For　if　we　admit　that　there　must　be　varieties　in　art　or　opinion　what
  sense　is　there　in　thinking　there　will　not　be　varieties　in　government？
  The　fact　is　very　simple。　　Unless　you　are　going　deliberately　to　prevent
  a　thing　being　good；　you　cannot　prevent　it　being　worth　fighting　for。
  It　is　impossible　to　prevent　a　possible　conflict　of　civilizations；
  because　it　is　impossible　to　prevent　a　possible　conflict　between　ideals。
  If　there　were　no　longer　our　modern　strife　between　nations；　there　would
  only　be　a　strife　between　Utopias。　　For　the　highest　thing　does　not　tend
  to　union　only；　the　highest　thing；　tends　also　to　differentiation。
  You　can　often　get　men　to　fight　for　the　union；　but　you　can
  never　prevent　them　from　fighting　also　for　the　differentiation。
  This　variety　in　the　highest　thing　is　the　meaning　of　the　fierce　patriotism；
  the　fierce　nationalism　of　the　great　European　civilization。
  It　is　also；　incidentally；　the　meaning　of　the　doctrine　of　the　Trinity。
  But　I　think　the　main　mistake　of　Mr。　Wells's　philosophy　is　a　somewhat
  deeper　one；　one　that　he　expresses　in　a　very　entertaining　manner
  in　the　introductory　part　of　the　new　Utopia。　　His　philosophy　in　some
  sense　amounts　to　a　denial　of　the　possibility　of　philosophy　itself。
  At　least；　he　maintains　that　there　are　no　secure　and　reliable
  ideas　upon　which　we　can　rest　with　a　final　mental　satisfaction。
  It　will　be　both　clearer；　however；　and　more　amusing　to　quote
  Mr。　Wells　himself。
  He　says；　〃Nothing　endures；　nothing　is　precise　and　certain
  （except　the　mind　of　a　pedant）。　。　。　。　Being　indeed！there　is　no　being；
  but　a　universal　becoming　of　individualities；　and　Plato　turned　his　back
  on　truth　when　he　turned　towards　his　museum　of　specific　ideals。〃
  Mr。　Wells　says；　again；　〃There　is　no　abiding　thing　in　what　we　know。
  We　change　from　weaker　to　stronger　lights；　and　each　more　powerful
  light　pierces　our　hitherto　opaque　foundations　and　reveals
  fresh　and　different　opacities　below。〃　　Now；　when　Mr。　Wells
  says　things　like　this；　I　speak　with　all　respect　when　I　say
  that　he　does　not　observe　an　evident　mental　distinction。
  It　cannot　be　true　that　there　is　nothing　abiding　in　what　we　know。
  For　if　that　were　so　we　should　not　know　it　all　and　should　not　call
  it　knowledge。　　Our　mental　state　may　be　very　different　from　that
  of　somebody　else　some　thousands　of　years　back；　but　it　cannot　be
  entirely　different；　or　else　we　should　not　be　conscious　of　a　difference。
  Mr。　Wells　must　surely　realize　the　first　and　simplest　of　the　paradoxes
  that　sit　by　the　springs　of　truth。　　He　must　surely　see　that　the　fact
  of　two　things　being　different　implies　that　they　are　similar。
  The　hare　and　the　tortoise　may　differ　in　the　quality　of　swiftness；
  but　they　must　agree　in　the　quality　of　motion。　　The　swiftest　hare
  cannot　be　swifter　than　an　isosceles　triangle　or　the　idea　of　pinkness。
  When　we　say　the　hare　moves　faster；　we　say　that　the　tortoise　moves。
  And　when　we　say　of　a　thing　that　it　moves；　we　say；　without　need
  of　other　words；　that　there　are　things　that　do　not　move。
  And　even　in　the　act　of　saying　that　things　c