But　why；　in　the　name　of　all　that　is　reasonable；　should　we；
  when　we　are　agreed　on　the　momentousness　of　the　issue　either　way；
  forthwith　desert　serious　methods　of　conducting　the　controversy？
  Why；　when　the　vital　need　of　our　time　is　to　induce　men
  and　women　to　collect　their　thoughts　occasionally；　and　be　men
  and　womennay；　to　remember　that　they　are　really　gods　that　hold
  the　destinies　of　humanity　on　their　kneeswhy　should　we　think
  that　this　kaleidoscopic　play　of　phrases　is　inopportune？
  The　ballets　of　the　Alhambra；　and　the　fireworks　of　the　Crystal　Palace；
  and　Mr。　Chesterton's　Daily　News　articles；　have　their　place　in　life。
  But　how　a　serious　social　student　can　think　of　curing　the
  thoughtlessness　of　our　generation　by　strained　paradoxes；　of　giving
  people　a　sane　grasp　of　social　problems　by　literary　sleight…of…hand；
  of　settling　important　questions　by　a　reckless　shower　of
  rocket…metaphors　and　inaccurate　‘facts；'　and　the　substitution
  of　imagination　for　judgment；　I　cannot　see。〃
  I　quote　this　passage　with　a　particular　pleasure；　because　Mr。　McCabe
  certainly　cannot　put　too　strongly　the　degree　to　which　I　give　him
  and　his　school　credit　for　their　complete　sincerity　and　responsibility
  of　philosophical　attitude。　　I　am　quite　certain　that　they　mean　every
  word　they　say。　　I　also　mean　every　word　I　say。　　But　why　is　it　that
  Mr。　McCabe　has　some　sort　of　mysterious　hesitation　about　admitting
  that　I　mean　every　word　I　say；　why　is　it　that　he　is　not　quite　as　certain
  of　my　mental　responsibility　as　I　am　of　his　mental　responsibility？
  If　we　attempt　to　answer　the　question　directly　and　well；　we　shall；
  I　think；　have　come　to　the　root　of　the　matter　by　the　shortest　cut。
  Mr。　McCabe　thinks　that　I　am　not　serious　but　only　funny；
  because　Mr。　McCabe　thinks　that　funny　is　the　opposite　of　serious。
  Funny　is　the　opposite　of　not　funny；　and　of　nothing　else。
  The　question　of　whether　a　man　expresses　himself　in　a　grotesque
  or　laughable　phraseology；　or　in　a　stately　and　restrained　phraseology；
  is　not　a　question　of　motive　or　of　moral　state；　it　is　a　question
  of　instinctive　language　and　self…expression。　Whether　a　man　chooses
  to　tell　the　truth　in　long　sentences　or　short　jokes　is　a　problem
  analogous　to　whether　he　chooses　to　tell　the　truth　in　French　or　German。
  Whether　a　man　preaches　his　gospel　grotesquely　or　gravely　is　merely
  like　the　question　of　whether　he　preaches　it　in　prose　or　verse。
  The　question　of　whether　Swift　was　funny　in　his　irony　is　quite　another　sort
  of　question　to　the　question　of　whether　Swift　was　serious　in　his　pessimism。
  Surely　even　Mr。　McCabe　would　not　maintain　that　the　more　funny
  〃Gulliver〃　is　in　its　method　the　less　it　can　be　sincere　in　its　object。
  The　truth　is；　as　I　have　said；　that　in　this　sense　the　two　qualities
  of　fun　and　seriousness　have　nothing　whatever　to　do　with　each　other；
  they　are　no　more　comparable　than　black　and　triangular。
  Mr。　Bernard　Shaw　is　funny　and　sincere。　　Mr。　George　Robey　is
  funny　and　not　sincere。　　Mr。　McCabe　is　sincere　and　not　funny。
  The　average　Cabinet　Minister　is　not　sincere　and　not　funny。
  In　short；　Mr。　McCabe　is　under　the　influence　of　a　primary　fallacy
  which　I　have　found　very　common　m　men　of　the　clerical　type。
  Numbers　of　clergymen　have　from　time　to　time　reproached　me　for
  making　jokes　about　religion；　and　they　have　almost　always　invoked
  the　authority　of　that　very　sensible　commandment　which　says；
  〃Thou　shalt　not　take　the　name　of　the　Lord　thy　God　in　vain。〃
  Of　course；　I　pointed　out　that　I　was　not　in　any　conceivable　sense
  taking　the　name　in　vain。　　To　take　a　thing　and　make　a　joke　out　of　it
  is　not　to　take　it　in　vain。　　It　is；　on　the　contrary；　to　take　it
  and　use　it　for　an　uncommonly　good　object。　　To　use　a　thing　in　vain
  means　to　use　it　without　use。　　But　a　joke　may　be　exceedingly　useful；
  it　may　contain　the　whole　earthly　sense；　not　to　mention　the　whole
  heavenly　sense；　of　a　situation。　　And　those　who　find　in　the　Bible
  the　commandment　can　find　in　the　Bible　any　number　of　the　jokes。
  In　the　same　book　in　which　God's　name　is　fenced　from　being　taken　in　vain；
  God　himself　overwhelms　Job　with　a　torrent　of　terrible　levities。
  The　same　book　which　says　that　God's　name　must　not　be　taken　vainly；
  talks　easily　and　carelessly　about　God　laughing　and　God　winking。
  Evidently　it　is　not　here　that　we　have　to　look　for　genuine
  examples　of　what　is　meant　by　a　vain　use　of　the　name。　　And　it　is
  not　very　difficult　to　see　where　we　have　really　to　look　for　it。
  The　people　（as　I　tactfully　pointed　out　to　them）　who　really　take
  the　name　of　the　Lord　in　vain　are　the　clergymen　themselves。　　The　thing
  which　is　fundamentally　and　really　frivolous　is　not　a　careless　joke。
  The　thing　which　is　fundamentally　and　really　frivolous　is　a
  careless　solemnity。　　If　Mr。　McCabe　really　wishes　to　know　what　sort
  of　guarantee　of　reality　and　solidity　is　afforded　by　the　mere　act
  of　what　is　called　talking　seriously；　let　him　spend　a　happy　Sunday
  in　going　the　round　of　the　pulpits。　　Or；　better　still；　let　him　drop
  in　at　the　House　of　Commons　or　the　House　of　Lords。　　Even　Mr。　McCabe
  would　admit　that　these　men　are　solemnmore　solemn　than　I　am。
  And　even　Mr。　McCabe；　I　think；　would　admit　that　these　men　are　frivolous
  more　frivolous　than　I　am。　　Why　should　Mr。　McCabe　be　so　eloquent
  about　the　danger　arising　from　fantastic　and　paradoxical　writers？
  Why　should　he　be　so　ardent　in　desiring　grave　and　verbose　writers？
  There　are　not　so　very　many　fantastic　and　paradoxical　writers。
  But　there　are　a　gigantic　number　of　grave　and　verbose　writers；
  and　it　is　by　the　efforts　of　the　grave　and　verbose　writers
  that　everything　that　Mr。　McCabe　detests　（and　everything　that
  I　detest；　for　that　matter）　is　kept　in　existence　and　energy。
  How　can　it　have　come　about　that　a　man　as　intelligent　as　Mr。　McCabe
  can　think　that　paradox　and　jesting　stop　the　way？　　It　is　solemnity
  that　is　stopping　the　way　in　every　department　of　modern　effort。
  It　is　his　own　favourite　〃serious　methods；〃　it　is　his　own　favourite
  〃momentousness；〃　it　is　his　own　favourite　〃judgment〃　which　stops
  the　way　everywhere。　　Every　man　who　has　ever　headed　a　deputation
  to　a　minister　knows　this。　　Every　man　who　has　ever　written　a　letter
  to　the　Times　knows　it。　　Every　rich　man　who　wishes　to　stop　the　mouths
  of　the　poor　talks　about　〃momentousness。〃　　Every　Cabinet　minister
  who　has　not　got　an　answer　suddenly　develops　a　〃judgment。〃
  Every　sweater　who　uses　vile　methods　recommends　〃serious　methods。〃
  I　said　a　moment　ago　that　sincerity　had　nothing　to　do　with　solemnity；
  but　I　confess　that　I　am　not　so　certain　that　I　was　right。
  In　the　modern　world；　at　any　rate；　I　am　not　so　sure　that　I　was　right。
  In　the　modern　world　solemnity　is　the　direct　enemy　of　sincerity。
  In　the　modern　world　sincerity　is　almost　always　on　one　side；　and　solemnity
  almost　always　on　the　other。　　The　only　answer　possible　to　the　fierce
  and　glad　attack　of　sincerity　is　the　miserable　answer　of　solemnity。
  Let　Mr。　McCabe；　or　any　one　else　who　is　much　concerned　that　we　should　be
  grave　in　order　to　be　sincere；　simply　imagine　the　scene　in　some　government
  office　in　which　Mr。　Bernard　Shaw　should　head　a　Socialist　deputation
  to　Mr。　Austen　Chamberlain。　　On　which　side　would　be　the　solemnity？
  And　on　which　the　sincerity？
  I　am；　indeed；　delighted　to　discover　that　Mr。　McCabe　reckons
  Mr。　Shaw　along　with　me　in　his　system　of　condemnation　of　frivolity。
  He　said　once；　I　believe；　that　he　always　wanted　Mr。　Shaw　to　label
  his　paragraphs　serious　or　comic。　　I　do　not　know　which　paragraphs
  of　Mr。　Shaw　are　paragraphs　to　be　labelled　serious；　but　surely
  there　can　be　no　doubt　that　this　paragraph　of　Mr。　McCabe's　is
  one　to　be　labelled　comic。　　He　also　says；　in　the　article　I　am
  now　discussing；　that　Mr。　Shaw　has　the　reputation　of　deliberately
  saying　everything　which　his　hearers　do　not　expect　him　to　say。
  I　need　not　labour　the　inconclusiveness　and　weakness　of　this；　because　it
  has　already　been　dealt　with　in　my　remarks　on　Mr。　Bernard　Shaw。
  Suffice　it　to　say　here　that　the　only　serious　reason　which　I　can　imagine
  inducing　any　one　person　to　listen　to　any　other　is；　that　the　first　person
  looks　to　the　second　person　with　an　ardent　faith　and　a　fixed　attention；
  expecting　him　to　say　what　he　does　not　expect　him　to　say。
  It　may　be　a　paradox；　but　that　is　because　paradoxes　are　true。
  It　may　not　be　rational；　but　that　is　because　rationalism　is　wrong。
  But　clearly　it　is　quite　true　that　whenever　we　go　to　hear　a　prophet　or
  teacher　we　may　or　may　not　expect　wit；　we　may　or　may　not　expect　eloquence；
  but　we　do　expect　what　we　do　not　expect。　　We　may　not　expect　the