edification are usually to be seen. To improve the morality of the profession it is necessary not only that its intellectual status be raised, but that more study and energising work be exercised in it, and that its members should be able to obtain success without the extravagant living necessary to compete with the ostentation prevalent in a society chiefly composed of a vulgar plutocracy. Extravagance of life begets immodesty of thought and indecency of habit, as well as sharp poverty and wretchedness do. In the former case a false modesty masks the latent lewdness, in the latter the results are found in open brutality, criminal ferocity, and a regular supply of loafers and lazy, callous-hearted prostitutes to prey upon society. Our factory system must also be held responsible for a great lack of true modesty in feeling, thought, and act among our working population. False modesty and sentimental affectation are not found among the toilers of the land, except in the modified forms of narrow-minded prejudice or hard religious fanaticism. Happily nature does not classify her gentle beings, her geniuses, or her noble hearts. Genius comes from the plough, noble hearts from the ranks of toil, refinement even from the slums. The saddest episodes in the whole epic of humanity are those in which the "mute inglorious Miltons" are submerged, and the unknown Hampdens perish, the gentle characters who are crushed by surrounding brutality, the noble hearts bowed in despair, the touching sympathies spoiled and corrupted. How truly precious is a loving human heart, how valuable beyond all price a sympathetic soul: yet how seldom we recognise them unless accompanied with wealth or worldly success! The great Russian artist, Verestchagin, has expressed his opinion upon the arrogance with which one class treats another in this country. How many cruel soul-murders lie at the doors of our national cants, cants of hypocrisy, religion, respectability, and snobbism! A glance through the popular literature of the day is enough to reveal to one the shallowness of the national mind. Daily we have instances of canting judges insulting women in our courts, canting critics smearing with detraction illustrious artists, canting authors pandering for gain to the domestic prejudices of successful money-grabbers who gather their hoards by every method of artful dealing within the pale of the law, and by unjust sweating of the labourer. I have dwelt mainly in this essay upon false modesty in its sexual aspect because in this respect it is most injurious to the physical, mental, and moral health of the nation, but false modesty in relation to personal independence of character and self-confidence of natural ability, is equally opprobrious. Schopenhauer has pointed out that it is the insidious aim of society to level down to a mean average of capacity. False modesty is the method by which people of mean capacity seek to induce superior people to disguise that strength or skill, the presence of which in another is so distasteful to them. In England especially a poor man who has intellectual power is always regarded with contempt, and insulted in every possible way. Men of great ability who refuse to put on an insincere humility, a kind of apologising demeanour for their own merits, are ignored or spoken disparagingly of. The whole tribe of critics will decry a man of genius and ridiculously laud a man who possesses merely a graceful talent. To place mediocrity on a pedestal is a mean way of disparaging great powers, which greatly pleases the mean feelings of small natures. Fools cannot see that to acknowledge real power is to ennoble oneself it is truckling to bullies, shams, and charlatans that is degrading. Genius, however, does not belong only to him who possesses it; it is the heirloom of the whole race. The man who has not an honest confidence in his own powers, physical or mental, places himself on a level with the mean natures who flout those powers which produce blessings that all may enjoy. V. Finally, we must say a few words upon that worst of all forms of false modesty which interferes with, and renders futile for all practical purposes, the education of the young. We repeat that nothing is immodest but what is done or thought or spoken with immodest intent. Neither the Catholic nor the Protestant system of education for the young is really healthy. Both are based upon a false shame of the physical, a self-consciousness of natural feelings, a preserving of a weak innocence which is quite incompatible with existence under complex circumstances and influences involving varied degrees of experience. If more experience were given to the young judiciously by word of mouth and by varied reading they would not have to pay so dearly for bought experience in after life. Just as physical cowardice can never be overcome without gymnastics, manly games, riding, swimming, and boxing, so moral courage will never be acquired by encouraging fear of the natural feelings and passions. Sir Walter Scott has rightly maintained that no healthy mind can be injured by varied reading. It is just varied reading that strengthens the mind; but it must be done openly and freely, and not secretly, as if forbidden mysteries were being indulged. People talk as if nature suggested nothing to the young. The true system is to direct all nature's feelings outwards: to allow no emotions to become self-centred; to keep no open sores in the mind, no anxiety on account of personal sensations which have no moral significance. Too much dwelling on the natural appetites is what makes the glutton, the drunkard, the sluggard, as well as the venereal sensualist. At the age of puberty to dwell upon the idea of love is not injurious, it prevents self-centredness. That which is denied open and outward expression will surely be dwelt upon secretly, selfishly, and injuriously. The chief objection of nonconformist sects to the witnessing of plays is, that they depict love scenes and natural courting; but to deny sexual thought is to induce sexual inversion. What is really immoral is false sentiment in which false modesty plays a leading part. Tom Jones is a coarsely written book we admit: but there is nothing immoral in it because there is no falsity; nor is the hero held up to be a particularly attractive person. But when we come to the literature of the restoration: the plays of Wycherley, the poems of Rochester, the ballads of D'Urfey, and the writings of Mrs. Behn, we come to a condition of topsy-turveydom more complete than Mr. Gilbert's. We find licentious men and light women held up as heroes and heroines, full of gaiety and spirit, while those characters who seek to be humane and self-respecting are held up to ridicule. Heart lessness and cruelty are placed before us as the acme of gentility: while in the ballads and poems, libidinous, and even dirty, matters are insisted upon as jokes, and the primary feelings of lust are expounded as the most perfect pleasures of existence. All this is utterly false: it was the lying cynicism of a set of young roués who had set themselves in violent rebellion against the tyrannical coercion of a too arbitrary puritanism. The confirmed sensualist always dreads to mention, and tries to hide from sight, the Black Phantom that for ever dogs his steps, whose countenance glares upon him, with red and fevered eyes and wan, haggard cheeks-the sad demon of SATIETY. The curse of modern life is the absurd modesty about natural functions and the ridiculous uncandidness of sentimental writers, who fill young girls' heads with ideas about love and marriage, ignoring all its beautiful and serious aspects and the responsibilities of its physical side. Thus numbers of young females are led to rush into connections and marriage from a too eager desire to learn what they are led to believe to be a grand secret; but which in reality is a very simple process, which being entirely associated with the mortal part of us, has no enduring value. To conclude, false modesty was until very lately responsible for an immense amount of cruelty, especially to women. Until a few years ago in these islands it was held to be highly indelicate to provide public lavatory accommodation for women. And it is only recently that proper sanitary conveniences have been provided for railway travellers. As an instance of the stupidity engendered by false bashfulness and modesty the following anecdote is worth retailing: A lady reared amid all the demoralising influences of false modesty had four accomplished daughters whom she had reared like exotic plants: they were delightful girls, but without any knowledge of life, just reared for the marriage-market, in which they were ultimately sacrificed in more senses than one. She invited two young men one night to dinner to hear these girls sing and play afterwards. For nearly eight hours they were in the house and during all that time this modest woman never once offered them the means of natural relief. At last when nearly dead with pain the two gentlemen had to jump up, take a hasty farewell, and rush out. of the house to find the first chance of avoiding permanent internal injury. This is a true example of the physical agony and danger which may be experienced through false modesty. The moral and mental agonies which are endured by thousands, under its baneful influence, are manifold and terrible. And this in a nation, one of the royal mottoes of which is :- VI. Notwithstanding the length to which we have already brought this article we cannot very well conclude without giving some attention to the following notorious cases of English injustice towards eminent public characters solely on account of private affairs which had really no bearing upon their artistic or political life: : 1st. The cruel treatment of the poet Shelley, not only on account of his supposed Atheism, but also because of his disagreement with Harriet Westbrook, and his subsequent marriage with Mary Godwin. 2nd. The callous treatment of Lord Byron because he and his lady could not agree, and the subsequent totally illogical attack made upon the morality of his poems. 3rd. The ingratitude shown towards Lord Nelson merely because he was fond of the ladies, and was supposed to be the favoured lover of Lady Hamilton. 4th. The rabid attacks made, even by Radical papers, upon Lord Lytton solely because he separated from his wife, and she chose to publicly insult him. 5th. The party capital made by politicians out of the divorce proceedings which were taken involving Sir Chas. Dilke, and the prudish hostility of the public against him in which they forgot all the public benefits he had conferred upon the nation. This entirely on account of matters which had nothing to do with his public career. 6th. The parallel case in regard to Charles Stewart Parnell, in which the whole work of an earnest life was shattered to pieces, |