I am sitting under tall trees, with a great wind boiling like surf
about the tops of them, so that their living load of leaves rocks
and roars in something that is at once exultation and agony.
I feel, in fact, as if I were actually sitting at the bottom
of the sea among mere anchors and ropes, while over my head
and over the green twilight of water sounded the everlasting rush
of waves and the toil and crash and shipwreck of tremendous ships.
The wind tugs at the trees as if it might pluck them root
and all out of the earth like tufts of grass. Or, to try yet
another desperate figure of speech for this unspeakable energy,
the trees are straining and tearing and lashing as if they
were a tribe of dragons each tied by the tail.
As I look at these top-heavy giants tortured by an invisible
and violent witchcraft, a phrase comes back into my mind.
I remember a little boy of my acquaintance who was once walking
in Battersea Park under just such torn skies and tossing trees.
He did not like the wind at all; it blew in his face too much;
it made him shut his eyes; and it blew off his hat, of which
he was very proud. He was, as far as I remember, about four.
After complaining repeatedly of the atmospheric unrest, he said
at last to his mother, "Well, why don't you take away the trees,
and then it wouldn't wind."
Nothing could be more intelligent or natural than this mistake.
Any one looking for the first time at the trees might fancy
that they were indeed vast and titanic fans, which by their mere
waving agitated the air around them for miles. Nothing, I say,
could be more human and excusable than the belief that it is
the trees which make the wind. Indeed, the belief is so human
and excusable that it is, as a matter of fact, the belief of about
ninety-nine out of a hundred of the philosophers, reformers,
sociologists, and politicians of the great age in which we live.
My small friend was, in fact, very like the principal modern thinkers;
only much nicer.
. . . . .
In the little apologue or parable which he has thus the honour
of inventing, the trees stand for all visible things
and the wind for the invisible. The wind is the spirit
which bloweth where it listeth; the trees are the material
things of the world which are blown where the spirit lists.
The wind is philosophy, religion, revolution; the trees are
cities and civilisations. We only know that there is a wind
because the trees on some distant hill suddenly go mad.
We only know that there is a real revolution because all
the chimney-pots go mad on the whole skyline of the city.
Just as the ragged outline of a tree grows suddenly more
ragged and rises into fantastic crests or tattered tails,
so the human city rises under the wind of the spirit into toppling
temples or sudden spires. No man has ever seen a revolution.
Mobs pouring through the palaces, blood pouring down the gutters,
the guillotine lifted higher than the throne, a prison
in ruins, a people in arms--these things are not revolution,
but the results of revolution.
You cannot see a wind; you can only see that there is a wind.
So, also, you cannot see a revolution; you can only see that
there is a revolution. And there never has been in the history
of the world a real revolution, brutally active and decisive,
which was not preceded by unrest and new dogma in the reign
of invisible things. All revolutions began by being abstract.
Most revolutions began by being quite pedantically abstract.
The wind is up above the world before a twig on the tree has moved.
So there must always be a battle in the sky before there
is a battle on the earth. Since it is lawful to pray
for the coming of the kingdom, it is lawful also to pray for
the coming of the revolution that shall restore the kingdom.
It is lawful to hope to hear the wind of Heaven in the trees.
It is lawful to pray "Thine anger come on earth as it
is in Heaven."
. . . . .
The great human dogma, then, is that the wind moves the trees.
The great human heresy is that the trees move the wind.
When people begin to say that the material circumstances have
alone created the moral circumstances, then they have prevented
all possibility of serious change. For if my circumstances
have made me wholly stupid, how can I be certain even that I
am right in altering those circumstances?
The man who represents all thought as an accident of environment
is simply smashing and discrediting all his own thoughts--
including that one. To treat the human mind as having an ultimate
authority is necessary to any kind of thinking, even free thinking.
And nothing will ever be reformed in this age or country unless
we realise that the moral fact comes first.
For example, most of us, I suppose, have seen in print and heard
in debating clubs an endless discussion that goes on between Socialists
and total abstainers. The latter say that drink leads to poverty;
the former say that poverty leads to drink. I can only wonder at their
either of them being content with such simple physical explanations.
Surely it is obvious that the thing which among the English proletariat
leads to poverty is the same as the thing which leads to drink;
the absence of strong civic dignity, the absence of an instinct
that resists degradation.
When you have discovered why enormous English estates were not long
ago cut up into small holdings like the land of France, you will have
discovered why the Englishman is more drunken than the Frenchman.
The Englishman, among his million delightful virtues, really has
this quality, which may strictly be called "hand to mouth," because under
its influence a man's hand automatically seeks his own mouth,
instead of seeking (as it sometimes should do) his oppressor's nose.
And a man who says that the English inequality in land is due only
to economic causes, or that the drunkenness of England is due only
to economic causes, is saying something so absurd that he cannot
really have thought what he was saying.
Yet things quite as preposterous as this are said and written under
the influence of that great spectacle of babyish helplessness, the
economic theory of history. We have people who represent that all
great historic motives were economic, and then have to howl at the
top of their voices in order to induce the modern democracy to act
on economic motives. The extreme Marxian politicians in England
exhibit themselves as a small, heroic minority, trying vainly to
induce the world to do what, according to their theory, the world
always does. The truth is, of course, that there will be a social
revolution the moment the thing has ceased to be purely economic.
You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy.
You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.
. . . . .
I get up from under the trees, for the wind and the slight
rain have ceased. The trees stand up like golden pillars
in a clear sunlight. The tossing of the trees and the blowing
of the wind have ceased simultaneously. So I suppose there
are still modern philosophers who will maintain that the trees
make the wind.
Sorry, no summary available yet.