THINGS AND THOUGHTS.

By John Chhistie.

—The Eternal Philistine. — Unfortunately, the Philistine is eternal, but that, unfortunately, is not the worst thing about him. This consists in the fact that he is eternally incapable of recognising the fact that he is a Philistine, and therefore not only the most contemptible and most inconvenient, but the most pitiful character in the drama of life. There is nothing so trying, nothing so sad, as a human foul that is unaware of its own soullesaie&s. —The Temple of Humanity. —■ A man is ready enough to assume or declare that he is in many ways different from every other man. Yet it seldom ocenrs to him to think that this very fact —in so far as it is a fact —proves that every other man is different from him, with a claim not less valid fhan his own. to exceptional consideration on account of the difference. Failure to recognise this means many things; for instance, with respect to oneself, too much conceit, and, with respect to others, too little sympathy; and from these, as from two main fountainheads, flows well nigh all that is ugly and discordant in hxunan relationships. Egoism or selfishness is no doubt necessary as a factor in real life, but then unselfishness or altruism is equally so; and unless they are harmonised in character and conduct, man, as a living soul and social being, is a .sorry failure. It is indeed well said by Samuel Daniel: Unless above himself hs can j Exalt himself, how poor a thing is man. j But it is the supreme Master in ethics who speaks the alpha and omega of the whole matter: What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? And Love ye one another. Happily, too, the philosophy of this is not merely a thing for the inaccessible heights, but fc-r the trodden ways of the world's everyday life. There is, also, a simple everyday way of getting at this fact. It consists in remembering that, as we are different from all other men, all other men are, therefore, different from us; and that, for us and for them, happiness and harmony will ensue only from mutual concession £>nd mutual consideration in every scene and act of the drama of life. Tllc active moral sense or enlightened sympathy which leads to this leads to the realisation of Christ's ideal; which means not only that each nuin shall ever mdeavour to be his -vshoksonie bettei self, but also a cordial contributor to things needful to enable 'other men also to be their better selves This spirit, this spiritual- disposition in man, is the key that opens the portal of that temple of humanity within which all men as mortal creatures are equal one with the other, and before God. j —Why?—' 1 Why should a man concern himself about what will happen when what will happen will not, in the ordinary sense, concern him? Perhaps his doing so is, in its way, a testimony to his immortality, and to the fact of his having an eternal interest in all things; especially in all things that appertain to himself and to human nature. — Futile Yearning. — One of the most touching things in connection with genius is th*- yearning -of its possessors for its recognition by those tliey love, and the practical certainty that, though those- they love may also love them, they are not likely to give what is yearned for in that connection. The less genius a man has, however, the more likely is he to have it recognised ; which is the roason why so many ordinarily clever people are idolised by their friends and their own generation. They are comfortably within the range of the common comprehension. Not so genius, which therefore, seldom, if ever, receives the cordial recognition which is its due at the time it is most desired, and at the time it would be most serviceable to its possessor. —A House of Dames. — What should be the logical result of the enfranchisement of women in a civilised country? Controversial persons, in prophesying before the event, will probably be found assuring the world that the change will inevitably turn society topsy-turvy ; women will become men, and men women ; or, at anyrate, the sexes will exchange places in the everyday work and political government of the world. This rhetorical nonsense leads to nonsense of another kind in the sages who solemnly expect Parliaments to become, under the benign influence of woman suffrage, assemblies of which every member shall be a Tennysonian knight, Who speaks no slander —no, nor listens to it, Whose glory is redressing human wrong, Who loves one only, and who cleaves to he:. But closely watch the affairs of countries in which women have obtained the parliamentary franchise, and it will be found that things have not come to pass as implied In either of these categories. Of course, there is nothing strange in this, for it is all simply in the way of Nature; what really is noteworthy is the omission of enfranchised women to demand the constitution of a branch legislature of their own sex, to be named "A House of Dames." No doubt it would make mistakes

at first, but probably it would in time become an exceedingly valuable organ of the constitution. It might possibly begin by legislating on trivialities and impossibilities, but in a little while many things bearing upon the physiological, mental, and social well-being of the sex — nay, of the race — aught advance and prosper under its initiation and insistence, as they never could without such inception and stimulation. At anyrate. who so fit to legislate for women as women themselves? Even an assembly of average women should be superior to an assembly of average men in that respect. — Lack of Spiritual Sensibility. — Though Hamlet is one of the greatest creations of the greatest Englishman that ever lived, it does not appear that English men generally arc adepts in the compre--hension of such characters — characters with soul, and of deen psychological interest. Indeed, they might be shown to be singularly inept in that respect. For instance, when it was intended to produce Maurice Maeterlinck's "Monna Vanna" in England, its performance was prohibited, chiefly because it exhibited a psychological process at work, in the. hero's behaviour. The hero does all he can — even to the extent of sacrificing his honour — to get Monna Vanna into his power, but wheu he succeeds in this he deliberately declines to use his opportunity. In England this was regarded as a burlesque on human nature, or as an exhibition of human nature not fit for the public gaze. Evidently it was inconceivable to the critic 3 that the hero should, under the circumstances, cease tobe a sensualist — that he should, so to speak, become clothed, and recover his right mind. Yet is it not one of the commonplaces of human experience that a man may, even in a moment, recoil from evil, and succeed in returning to his betteT nature? And in scouting the exemplification of this process in Maeterlinck's hero, did the English objectors not publish their own essential grossness to the world, and declare their lack of spiritual sensibility? Surely a sorry exhibition in the countrymen of the dramatist who created Hamlet and other great characters, in whom the human soul is» seen in undress and at work within itself ! Or did "the objectors merely display the prejudice natural to persons familiar only, with the puppets and dummies of a stage dedicated to the dramatic apotheosis of the conventional manners and the more obvious immoralities of a commonplace society? This should, in fairness, be thought of, for people accustomed to the theatrical lepresentation of the trivial ami temporary cannot, perhaps, be expected to appreciate the work of a man of genius, who concerns himself with the deep and permanent characteristics of human nature.. Theirs is, over again, the old story of the commonplace blaspheming the ideal, and knowing not what it does, and, of course, it is pity, not scorn, that should be meted out to those who thus lack not only intellectual insight and mental discernment, but the crowning and saving grace of spiritual sensibility.