•Vol. 62 No. 1 JANUARY 1957 Threepence

Notes of the Month Gustos

J. M. Robertson and the Myth Theory Archibald Robertson

The Limitations of Rational Thinking T. H. Pear

Can We Afford Equality? .1. II. Blackham

When Ethical Faith Came Elise Jerard

Faith-Conditioned Immorality Toni Hill

Hadrian G. 1.Bennett

Even If No Prayer . . . Geo. E. O'Dell

Conway Discussions Correspondence

South Place News Activities of Kindred Societies

Society's Other Activities

• A

SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY., SUNDAY MORNING MEETINGS AT ELEVEN O'CLOCK

January 6—W. E. SWINTON, Ph.D.—"Religious Belief in this Ceo-physicalYear."

BasS Solos by a C. DOWMANRing out \Nild,Bells • .. •Gounad

Blow, blow thou Winter Wind .. . • .. Roger QuilterHymn: No. 81 • •

January 13—CEDRIC DOVER—"What iS Happening to Culture?" • Piano and violin' Solo by ARVON DAVIES and ELI:4/4mm BONDERS

Sonata •in A Major .. . Bach

. • , Hymn:. No. 67 .

January 20—ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON, MA.—" 'Brave New World'—25 Years After."

Piano Solos by JOYCE LANGLEY'Hymn: No. 175 •

Janklary 27—ADRIAN BRUNEL—"The Commonsense of Thomas Paine."Contralto Solos by MURIEL DITTERLIE

Hymn: No. 207

(Questions after lecture)

SOUTH PLACE SUNDAY CONCERTS, 66th SEASONCoticerts 630 p.m. (Doors open 6 p.m.) Admission Is. 6d.

January 6—ALEXANDER YOUNG. REX STEI'llENSMozart Cantata K.619; Schumann Licderkrcis, op. 24.Britten Holy Sonnets of John Donne, op. 35.

January 13—AEOLIAN STRING QUARTETHaydn op. 76 No. 6 in E flat; Bartok No. 2; Brahms op 51, No. 2 in A

minor.

January .20—LONDON PIANO QUARTETMozart K.478 in G minor; Brahms op. 25 in G minor. Piano Quartets.Beethoven Serenade Trio, op. 8 in D.

January 27—MARTIN STRING QUARTET. WILFRID PARRYMozart K428 in E flat; Schubert op. posth. in D minor.Elgar op. 48 in A minor, Piano Quintet.

Officers

Hon. Treasurer: E. J. FAIRHALLHon. Registrar: Mits. T. C. LINDSAY Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, W. C.ISecretary: J. HurroN HYND

The Monthly Record is posted free to Members and Associates. The Annual

charge to subscribers is 4s. 6d. Matter for publication in the February issue

should reach the Editor, G. C. Dowman, Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, W.C.1,by January 5.

The Objects of the-Society are the study•and dissemination of ethical principles •and the cultivation of a rational religious sentiment.

Any• person in sympathy. with these objects is cordially invited to become aMember (minimum annual subscription is 10s.), or Associate (minimum annual

subscription•.5s.). Life membership £10 10s. Associates are not eligible to voteor hold office. Enquiries should be made of the Registrar to whom subscriptions

- should be paid.

•

TheMONTHLYRECORD

Vol. 62 No. 1 JANUARY 1957 Threepence

CONTENTS

NOTES OF THE MONTH, Custos 3

J. M. ROBERTSON AND THE MYTH THEORY, Archibald Robertson .. 5

THE LIMITATIONS OF RATIONAL THINKING, T. H. Pear, M.A. 7

CAN WE AFFORD EQUALITY? H: J. !Peckham .. 10

ETHICAL FAITI4' CAME, Elise Jerard 12

FAITH-CONDITIONED IMMORALITY, Tom Hill... 13

HADRIAN, G. I. Bennett .. 16

EVEN IF No PRAYER . . , George E. aDell 20

CONWAY DISCUSSIONS 21

CORRESPONDENCE 21

SOUTH PLACE NEWS 22

ACTIVITIES OF KINDRED SOCIETIES 23

SOCIETY'S OTHER ACTIVITIES 73

The views expressed in this journal are not necessarily those of the Society

Notes of the MonthWHAT ARE THE prospects of the "dissemination of ethical principles and the

cultivation of a rational religious sentiment" in 1957? To put the questionis to point to the main difficulty which must ,face a Society such as this.The ethical principles which anyone holds and wants to disseminate dependto a very lame extent on what religious sentiment he thinks rational. Tothose who think Roman Catholicism rational (and whole libraries have beenwritten to prove that it is) one line of action seems ethical; to those whothink Protestantism rational another; to 'Jews arffither; to Moslems another;to Hindus another; to Buddhists another. What is rational i-eligioussentiment, and what ethical principles are linked up with it? On this thereis no agreement in the world. We wonder whether there is agreement evenin the South Place Ethical Society.

3

PeaceWe will suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is an ethical principle

that people should live peaceably together. If so, it is unethical that peopleshould kill one another, and the more people you kill, the less ethical youare. The fact remains that people do kill one another, and that the onlyremedy we seem willing to try is to ensure that if somebody kills, somebodyelse shall kill him. That is, if you are unethical. I will be unethical too, andthe net result will be ethical. More remarkable still, the only remedy weseem to have for organised mass killing—commonly called war—is to ensurethat if some Government organises the mass killing of another people, otherGovernments shall organise the mass killing of the people whose Govern-ment began it. Possession of the hydrogen bomb ensures that the resultantkilling shall be as massive as possible all round. This is called the "uniquedeterrent",• and is said to be very ethical indeed. We bow before suchmysteries.

The Chances

Are we likely to be called upon to be as ethical as that in 1957? Prophecyis risky; but on the whole we bet against it. Suicidal maniacs are rare anddo not usually become rulers of states. Hitler. was not aware in 1939 thathe was committing suicide; on the contrary, he calculated that he couldget away with it at small cost. Today every statesman knows—Eisenhower,Dulles, Eden, Macmillan, Bulganin, Khrushchov, Nehru all know—thatnuclear war would be mass murder in which they and their work wouldfounder. Consequently they will not launch it. Minor affairs, started inthe sure and certain knowledge that no one will launch a nuclear war, theremay be. We must learn to live with that risk and, if it materialises, avoidthe supreme folly of committing suicide on our neighbour's doorstep becausewe do .not like his face.

Agreement to Differ .For good or evil, history has so arranged that the world is divided into

two major power-groups—one believing on the whole in capitalism andChristianity, the other in Communism and materialism. Between these twoeconomic systems and these two ideologies there is inevitable conflict. Thatwe cannot help; but we can, if we try, prevent that conflict from taking theform of international war. That is the meaning of peaceful coexistence. Wehope naturally that Communist states will learn to do without secret policeand purges, just as we hope that capitalist states will learn to do withoutthe sort of colonialism that-exists in Cyprus and Kenya. But both are morelikely to learn if they can drop the perpetual posture of defence againstattack each by the other. To put it on no other ground, the dropping of theperpetual pretence that you are going to be attacked will free millions ofhands and brains for constructive work which are now devoted to preparingmutual destruction. Such a mobilisation for peace would put the lunaticfringe in the straitjacket where they belong and be the greatest victory forHumanism yet won.

American .Visit -

THE British Medical-Journal reported in their issue of October 20, 1956:some of the experiences of Professor Sir Ernest Kennaway after hiseighteen days'-visit to the U.S.A. in May last.•

.His visit embraced New York, Yale and Harvard, and included in theitinerary of our member-contributor was a visit to the Sloan-KetteringInstitute for Cancer Research, where they show a film featuring the workof the institute and an elementary description of cancer. Normal and4

malignant cells are represented by good and evil goblins, "whose antics,"says .Sir Ernest, "would be rather tedious even in the comic strips of achildren's newspaper." Professor Kennaway gave a description of Freshmenat Harvard and a pleasing accdunt of 'birds and gardens in Massachusetts.

C.B.E.We are pleased to congratulate our fellow-member, O. Maurice Hann,

who has served several terms on the general committee of this Society, onthe honour he has been accorded by Her Majesty the Queen in the HonoursList of May 1956. The title of Commander of the Most Excellent Order ofthe British Empire was given him for services in Industrial Relations and,on his retirement, as a member of the Industrial Court:

J. M. Robertson and the Myth Theory

ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON

THE MYTH theory of Christian origins developed by J. NI. Robertson andothers arose as an attempt to apply scientific•sociology to the history ofreligion. He tells us in the introduction to Christianity.and Mythology—hisfirst work on the subject—that he began his enquiries nearly twenty-fiveyears before the book appeared. That is to 'say, he had been thinking of itsince 1875, when he was a youth of nineteen and had not yet met Bradlaugh:

At that date.liberal thought about Christianity could be summed up iathe two great names of Strauss and Renan—Renan, owing to his lucidFitnch style, being far the better known of the two. It is impossible toover-rate the learning which Renan put into his seven volumes on the originsof Christianity. They repay reading even today. But his Life of Jesus, whichopens the series, though it scandalised the orthodoxy of its day, surrendersto orthodoxy one important position. It concedes that Jesus was unique:- All• the ages will proclaim", the book concludes, "that among the sons of.men there is none born who is greater than Jesus." And among the liberalscholars of the last century few dared to be more radical than Renan. -

Robertson rightly saw that scientific sociology cannot accept explanationsof religious origins in terms of unique founders. His life-work as a historianof religion was devoted to providing a more rational account. Frazer's GoldenBough, the first volume of which appeared in 1890 (and has since beenreinforced by the work of Jane Harrison) gave Robertson a useful clue.Since man lives on livine things which are born, die and are reborn everyyear, and since religion is rooted in the material conditions of man's life,we meet everywhere with myths of a god who is born and dies and risesfrom the dead. Osiris, Adonis, Attis, Dionysus are the subjects of suchmyths—why not Jesus? Robertson is at his happiest in answering Frazer,who, despite his own pioneer work in comparative religion, rejected themyth theory on the ground that great religious movements could springonly "from the conscious and deliberate efforts of extraordinary minds".Robertson points out that even granting this, it does not follow that theextraordinary mind is the same as the god of the cult. Was Dionysus anextraordinary mind? And as a matter of fact extraordinary minds count forless than favourable social conditions, of which even propagandists who areby no means extraordinary may take advantage. Frazer was in fact echoingCarlyle's "great man" theory.

5

So far Robertson had merely proved what no Rationalist nowadays woulddeny, that salient features of Christian tradition bear the stamp of myth,and that they could have arisen without the intervention of any uniquefotinder or other mind above the ordinary. But he has to explain howthese mythical features came to be attached to the story of a Jew who wascrucified by a Roman procurator of Judea in the first century of our era forclaiming to be king of the Jews—the anointed one, Messiah or Christos.Was there such a Jew, and did he contribute anything to the body of mythof which we Rationalists recognise the Christian religion to consist? Or wasthere no such Jew,' and is the whole story myth from beginning to end?

That is the ground to which the debate has gradually shifted. Todayanyone who detects the least possible historical basis in the story is classedby mythicists as an enemy of the myth theory. But it is important to notethat that is not the issue raised by Robertson, nor did he take that position.His statement in Christianity and Mythology, published in 1900, is carefullyguarded. It can, he says, be rationally claimed "that a teacher or teachers

'named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs, mayhave Messianically uttered some" of the teachings ascribed to Jesus. It is a- tenable historic hypothesis" that such a Jesus was put to death B.C. (HowRobertson would have enjoyed unravelling the Dead Sea Scrolls!) "It ishistorically possible, and not very unlikely, that there were several Jesuseswho claimed to be Messiahs." In The Historical Jesus, published in 1916.he concedes the possibility that a Jesus was "put to death by the Romans"for preaching "a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule", and thatlater Christian writers, "much concerned to conciliate the Romans-, sup-pressed the facts. In Jesus and Judas. published in 1927, he hazards thehypothesis that an oriental "faith-healer" with a local reputation was sacri-ficed by Galilean peasants "at some.time of social tumult", and that thestory was later for some reason transferred to Jerusalem and fastened ona Roman procurator. Robertson concedes any or all of these possibilities onthe.one condition that we do not :try to trace Christianity to the teaching ofany such person, or treat the Gospels as a trustworthy account of his say-ings or doings. •

How, then, did the time-honoured story of a dying and rising god cometo be associated with a crucified "king of the Jews" in the first century?I will give in a necessarily short•summary Robertson's explanation. "Jesus"is by common consent' the Greek form of the Hebrew -Joshua". NowJoshua in the Old Testament is the 'hero who leads Israel into the PromisedLand with much miraculous accompaniment—plainly, therefore, a god, andthe plainer since the name means "saviour". (This is not quite accurate: itmeans "Jahveh saves-.) Robertson cites a medieval Moslem tradition thatJoshua was the son of Miriam—which equates him even more closely withJesus the son of Mary. (But is medieval tradition evidence?) Having thusestablished a pre-Christian cult of Joshua, Robertson postulates that itinvolved the annual crucifixion of a victim impersonating the god—at firstin grim earnest, later in a mystery-play of which the Gospel story of thecrucifixion and resurrection was originally a transcription. He finds in thestory as we have it (the night scene in Gethsemane, the grotesque trial, !themockery and maltreatment of the priSoner) evidence that it was originallynot even meant as a historical account, but served as stage directions foractors in a drama. This annual ceremony, Robertson thinks, came downfrom early times and survived in a hole-and-corner way—frowned on byofficial Jewry—until the first century. Then, in the turmoil attendant on theJewish rebellion 'and the destruction of Jerusalem, the devotees of theJoshua or Jesus cult identified their god with the Messiah of the Jews andstarted making converts in competition with official Jewry. The Gospelsare expansions of the original passion-play, new matter being embodied as6

need arose. Teaching was borrowed from Jewish sources or invented forthe occasion. Pilate was first put into the story as a notorious "shedder ofJewish blood" and then—as the sectaries later had come to hate the Jewsmore than they hated the Romans—all but exonerated in order to blackenthe Jews. And so on.

The trouble with this theory is the mass of hypotheses it invokes. ThereMay have been a prehistoric cult of Joshua; but we have no historic recordof it. We have a lot of ancient material about the Jews, written not only bythemselves, •but by Greeks and Romans—some of them, like Tacitus.extremely hostile. Yet in the most hostile accounts there is no indication thatany section of Jews in the Graeco-Roman period (we are not concernedwith earlier periods) worshipped any but one God—let alone practisedhuman sacrifice. On the contrary, all who write about them stress theiruncompromising monotheism and throw it in their teeth. And if the firstChristians inherited a passion-play handed down from ancient days. whydo we never hear of it? Why did they give it up?

Fortunately Robertson himself points the way to a less far-fetched solu-tion. We have only to suppose that in fact (as he -grants is possible) one ormore teachers bearing the common name of Jesus and claiming to be theMessiah were crucified as disturbers of the peace (one by Pilate, as statedby Tacitus—but this does not exclude others) and that 'stories about themgot mixed up with the far older story of the dying and rising god and so,in that seething underworld of the Roman 'Empire, contributed to the mythof Christianity. The reconstruction of the facts demands a minute examina-tion of early Christian and anti-Christian literature 'which I have attemptedtieelsewhere, but cannot embark on here.

In such a reconstruction there is room for plenty of contributions irro-rfmt.supporters and opponents of the myth theory. Robertson argues that sucha reconstruction would be "merely a restatement" of the myth theO6:'-S6be it. Why bicker about words? I for one gladly acknowledge fiiyrdebt tOJ. M. Robertson—as also others, some mythicists, some historiciStsforassembling the evidence and helping me to weigh it. ',Let us draw üporvithemall and be grateful. 9111

J tri(Summary.of a lecture.delivered on Novetnber0j)b„,

l it) .1i :;nibnuin ihorlgoetvi town ....rft et rt..tithq

ti, .spr, 'p.t..r:•• AT

The Limitations -of Rational-Thiriking' • ' 441111(111Jells .10 .L2171.1,l11.1 'I/ I

41....11113 'ar11011 f; .iiindpit;

5y.:(111:1..Wit tsrlt '/E.? fun-earitr,P! 1::(11 tsu u 1f) Leva111I all

sis ./..111; 111111 r..JI!!" f.rotr./.3 Opird

PROFESS'ORth EiA 11,.,t2 :;;;:dru

I. I. Jr I, 1. (LI- THE SEPARATION betweellithe.rtwo cUltures:Ohe ithellectualsr and' the, scten-lists) has been gettin-il-deepei- uhderjOui--;leyes;''EtlierleiliVjioW-infeckiticommunication between them; Hide'' but different kinds of iricoapijeherisiaand dislike. . . . The iriOlse'behirid1the'tgeiehtiSig1drives“theiti)to lanit thearea of tragedk, In'take nothing as tragic1thatinuicondeivably1lie iisithinmen's will. Therit.haiiiiiiithitieliul.doiiteiripfifdi- tfilie'gpiteselitatiVes 'Of 'thetraditionaVthilture 'Who 'iise"a" deetilinsight kith ina:res' fate ti!Pob'Setieei the

'7

social truth—or to do something pettier than obscure the truth, just to hangon to a few 'perks'."

I will fry, by describing a classified assortment of concrete examples—amethod of exposition unfashionable among social scientists—to demonstratethe uses and limitations of "rational" thinking (in the physical scientist'ssense) in guiding the life of the ordinary man. The treatment will be psycho-logical, not philosophical.

A fcw words about my point of view might be helpful. I am not a rigidlyscientific psychologist, if to be this is to believe in nothing which is notobjectively demonstrable and -measurable. I am not a behaviourist, thoughI believe in studying every form of outward behaviour when it is relevant, ifthis -ism implies the banishment of introspection as a method. I doubtwhether a study of animals so low in the biological scale as rats or pigeonscan supply the most important clues to man's thinking—activities, since inthem imagery, symbolism, speaking, reading and writing play such an im-portant part. I doubt if sociologists can get far without social psychology:their generalisations are minty and misleading unless they are supportedby the results of extensive observation of facts. . .

As a social psychologist, I tend to think out the kinds of problem whichconcern Myself, actually or potentially, from Within outWards: how doesthis event affect my own experience? (this seems to be psychologicalhonesty) and then to consider whether the attitudes and sentiments some-times flatteringly attributed to me by, say, politicians, are really more thantheir own wishfulfilling projections. Do I behave like "economic man" or"industrial man"? With this partial self-knowledge (not forgetting uncon-dcious motivation) I may hope better to understandhow' my friends andacquaintances, to say nothing of enemies, can differ from me.

Here are typical problems which might be yours and mine, and may beeriotia.l Can they' be solved by reason alone, and if so, are there several

kind's df reason?,(1).A.-eomplicated mechanism refuses to "work". For this, a reason or.

reasons.of a physical kind may be assumed to be responsible (the directionsissued with the machine may have been misread by me, or be incomplete:these would be psychological explanations). The remedy is to discover theyeast:ins and 'aCt–aceordingly. -But have we not heard, from airmen ofdifferent nationalities, that if a plane is unsatisfactory some men wouldset about mending it, others might descend and telephone for another?Which is the more reasonable?

A structural defect is discovered in a building. Experts recommendseveral "cures". The "best" one may be expensive. Is it worth the money?Willythe'cheapeFrerfledyrser ie• its .purpose for a time? "Reason" here mayinave trUstifig/br distrusting, dfi expert financially interested in the decision.

The existence of a house is threatened by coast erosion. The geologistmay say that the damage is inevitable, in the long run. The local councilmay plead poverty, or urge that groynes and sea walls should be a nationalresponsibility. Everyone agrees that these would stave off disaster. Is thedecision to use .propaganda a'dational lone?•Ittlas often meant saving thehouses.

r (4) A ,new leeaTdecision may affecfa client,. who consults a lawyer. Thecourse of aCtion recOnimended maV•he'againsI theclient's moral principles.How Cad a knowledge _Of sciebcd help_ hitn?'. (5) In a General Election, if one votes; it is for a hian, and his views of

Seiteral issties,,certain to conie bp, may be oppose'd tO one's own. He may be 'honest enough id:disagree with hi.Party on the Most important questionin the life .of that Parliament. Does knowledge of ,scientifiC methods help8

here? Wisely•used, a study of opinion polls over a period may illuminatecertain questions: this development of. science was not available untilrecently.

(6) In complicated problems of human relationships, one may often trustthe menfories of ones own judgment in similar circumstances, but there maybe no personal precedent: most people, if married, are approaching itsproblems for the first time. Expert advisers, when consulted, may base theirrecommendations on their own moral values, or their knowledge of theClient's. The reasonable course is to choose the best adviser available, butwho will advise on the choice of adviser? One's own leaning, let us say, is tothe view that as few people as possible should be hurt by the action decidedupon. Yet in different culture-patterns and sub-culture-patterns there arevery different views on what is legitimately hurtful, and within the samesocial group there can be very different character-structures; e.g., tough andtender. Yet knowledge of .anthropology, sociology and psychology can bevery helpful today: e.g. in the treatment of child delinquency..

Scientific rational thinking can and ought to be used as far as possible:and the bounds of possibility are rapidly extending. It is reasonable toassign considerable weight to the daily weather forecasts:, the signs of theweather used before this development were much less reasonable. It wouldbe reasonable for the layman to want to know much more than he doesabout the action of powerful drugs. Yet in the choice of trusted friends orexperts to advise us we are inevitably guided by likes and dislikes, Jaybeliefs, true or untrue, implanted by propaganda, direct or concealed:

To understand the underlying problem—the nature of human nature—some working concepts were proposed. It is useless for psychologists todismiss the problem with, "Human nature 1s everything which makeshumans do what they do", or "Some do and some don't; that is all we cansay". There is a difference between Florence Nightingale and Nazi tortuters,and we are trying to understand it. •A comprehensive theory of humannature, it was suggested, can be formulated on a basis of understandingreflex actions, "drives", causing tensions which have to be resolved, instincts,emotions, attitudes, sentiments, complexes and character-structure..(Workingdefinitions were suggested.)

The concept of character-structure was expounded. A person with a•highly integrated character may be required (as in war-time) to develop asecondary character-structure, alongside the first. This is not always pos-sible; then, to those who expect him to develop the secondary structure.but not to his old friends, he may appear obviously neurotic. Another typemay develop the later structure and cast it off afterwards: a third mayintegrate the two for the rest of his life. Hypotheses of this kind, leadingto clinical inVestigations, are not widely encouraged in communities exposedto the constant threat of war.• Social pressures on the individual may. help or hinder him in integrating ormodifying his character. But they arc apt to change rapidly, in these days ofmass communication and increasing professional propaganda.' If a religionis based on love, this is likely to be most intense for the nearest and dearest,and become weaker, but still real, as the circle widens. But-many people'slives are made easier or more tolerable by the thought of heroes or heroinesand some persons extend or modify their .list -of models all through theirlives. In an intensely religious person there is a central model •to receivemost of their veneration. Is there a "reason of the sentiments", in thephysical scientist as well as the non-scientific thinker? How can theirdifferences be reconciled?

(Summary of a lecture delivered on October 21)9

Can We Afford Equality ?

B

H. J. BLACKHAM

THE SUBJECT is topical, mainly because after defeat in two general electionsthe Labour Party has undertaken a programme of re-thinking basic partyconcepts and aims, and "socialism is about equalitY". Although topical, thesubject is not new. The eighteenth-century philosophers, whose line of think-ing modern Socialists prolong, insisted that social institutions were justifiedby utility, not by divine authority, and that society existed for mutualadvantage, the equal advantage of all:

The question, can we afford equality, is relevant because poor countriesdefinitely cannot. Although India proclaimed in her new constitution"democracy, justice,. liberty, equality, and fraternity", the cost of maintaininea 'school child is estimated at the per capita income of three persons. TheLabour Party pamphlet is called Towards Equality. Until the abundance ofwhich Marx dreamed is available, there will always be physical limits toequality.

Equality of opportunity in this country since the Education Act of 1944does not simply mean that everybody has the opportunity of a grammarschool education followed by'university or technical training; it also meansthat the great majority of the nation's children, who have not the abilityand aptitudes to take advantage of this opportunity, shall enjoy an educa-tion of equal social status suited to their needs. To make this promise gooddoes not necessarily mean-that the cost of a complete -academic educationmust be spent on the child who is unable to profit by one for there is a lawof diminishing returns in education as in other things; but it does mean thateach type of education shall be as complete and as good as it can be made:and this does mean spending a great deal more money on -the secondarymodern type of education for the great majority. Actually, more is beingspent on the defective and deficient child than on the child of averagea bilities.

It is said that our expenditure on public health has reached the ceiling inrelation to our present national income; but the Health Centres, like theCounty Colleges, are nearly forgotten dreams, provision for the aged is stillquite inadequate, and the extent of slums and sub-standard housing is stillserious enough to excite an occasional leading article, if not to hit the head-lines. Some Z million are poor enough to require the help of the N.A.B., andthis total on the border-line of want affects some 350,000 children.

The Labour Party pamphlet also calls attention to the disparity in con-ditions of employment between wage-earners and the salaried grades. Thishas recently come home to the public with the incidence' of short time anddismissals in The motor industry. The salaried worker (ides not normallyhave to face such disruption or disasters nor to carry such anxieties; hisconditions of employment provide far more generously for him in sickness:on holiday, on dismis§al and after retirement. To bring conditions ofemployment for the workers nearer this standard would require legislation,and would cost industry and .the Exchequer at the least a very large sum.Sndustry, however, might well be saved a part of the great cost of thepresent large labour turn-over.

What about wages and salaries? No alternative to collective 'bargaininghas yet been proposed which has gained the confidence of the country, andnone is worth serious discussion in this connection. There is a floor10

(minimum wage and N.A.B. rates) and a ceiling (maximum spendable .income after taxation), and these can be moved by national policy, but notwithout cost to the Exchequer.

The items mentioned add up to a formidable total which represents onlythe cost in money. In some cases, money will not be able to buy the needed(imported) materials; even more certain and more serious, money cannotalways secure the requisite trained personnel. In other words, these claimson the national resources are in competition.

Where is the money to come from? (I) There may be a case for the re-allocation of existing revenue. In any case, the Education budget, mainlybecause of the needs of the "bulge", and the national need of technicians,and also because earlier priorities have been satisfied; has required andobtained a substantially increased proportion of the national expenditure.The eyes of all other Departments must be wistfully fixed on the soaringfigure for Defence: nobody knows what this money is in fact buying, buteverybody knows that he does not feel safe. H6wever, the most than canbe hoped at present is that the figure for defence will be stabilised, as acondition of having any social policy. (2) Increased production, we areconstantly told, is the right and proper way to get the benefits of increasedsocial provisions for those who want them. One of the difficulties is that thegreater incentive to increased productivity of labour, the Labour Party holds,is a generously conceived policy of social equality; and this is the policywhich important eleinents in the economy find a disincentive. This differenceof opinion (and interest) can be a severe strain which, far from raising pro-duction, occasions great losses. (3) Taxation is the only other way of findingthe money. The present progressive taxation of incomes is about the presentlimit. It is privately owned capital on which the eyes of Socialist politiciansare fixed. The aggregate of private propeity is some two-and-a-half timesthe aggregate of incomes, and this ratio is increasing. Money makes money;large inheritances and capital gains leave about a quarter of private wealthin the hands of an extremely small minority. All this is difficult to tax, andit will require• really radical fiscal and political policies if preseht trendstowards greater inequality are to be arrested and reversed, and some of themoney found for the social investment which produces real wealth—inRuskin's sense.

There are many complications. Of schools, health, poverty, conditions ofemployment, which should have priority? In any case, the first priority isexports and the basic needs of our economy. Also, if equality is reallyaccepted as a principle, it is world-wide in application, and the contributionof Britain measured by the comparative standard enjoyed in this countrymust be substantial. There is no case for equality merely at home. Nor areclaims going to lbe satisfied at home or abroad merely by..a productiveeconomy, overflowing with wealth as in the U.S.' without a deliberate policyaimed at a rational allocation of resources, that is to say, aimed at thesatisfaction of claims and dues of the kind listed above, subject to necessarypriorities.

The statement is sometimes made that the policies of the Left are advo-cated for the sake of social equality. Is there a "social equality" over andabove legal, political and moral equality and equal security and oppor-tunity? If by "social equality" is meant social and political intimidation.the reduction of all to uniformity in opinions, habits, tastes, and style oflife, by the overwhelming pressure of mass discrimination against non-conformity, this is one of the great evils, rooted in one of the basic tenden-cies of our own nature and encouraged by popular government. Legitimateclaims to equality should be sharply distinguished from this tendency; andthat is the most urgent need in thinking on this subject today.

(Summary of an address delivered on Noveinker 18)Il

Ethical Faith CameBY

ELISE JERARD

(THE Ethical Outlook of America have published in their November-December 1956 issue, "Ibsen After Fifty Years" by Archibald Robertson..The editor of the paper had been impressed by the article when he read itin the Monthly Record. Similarly impressed while reading this issue, theeditbr of the Montldy Rebord was struck by an article by Elise Jerardentitled "Faith Lost and Found".

We have not the room to reprint the article in full which tells; most enter-tainingly, the writer's religious development from the time when she was achild until she heard the voice of our Secretary, Mr. J. Hutton Hynd, overthe radio. This fact should encourage British Humanists to be more insistentthan ever in asking for increased broadcast facilities. When we asked Mr.Hutton Hynd about Elise Jerard we found that he had not heard of herbefore. However, here is the section of the article we propose to offer ourreaders, with due acknowledgments to our friends of the Ethical Outlook.)

ON THE radio I heard many honest, moving ministers—Harry Fosdick.Stephen Wise, Elmore McKee, Bishop Shiel, John Holmes. Then one day Iheard the Church of the Air. That was one of those wonderful hours whenthe heart answers.clearly, "This is mine!" and suddenly a life is changed. Thetalk was by J. Hutton Hynd, a Leader in the American 'Ethical Union. Itwas unoratorical, person-to-person. "We are members one of another"—thatwas the subject, or in modern translation, "We arc parts of one another."Both the old and the new phrasing were offered, and that of course iseharacteristic of the Ethical movement which leaves the maximum freedomof thought and personal preference to its members. What made this hourfor me one of decision and of dedication?• This, essentially, is what was said. Religions have divided people; and yetthere is a core•which all can accept, which can bring us all closer together •in our common humanity, and which can raise the standard of our livingtogether. The accent is on deed above creed. The kernel of the Ethical faithis: "So act as to bring forth the best in others, thereby bringing forth thebest in' yourself. So act in the family, with friends, in business, in the pro-fessions, in politics, in the ever-widening circles of activity." Yes! That wasa belief I could subscribe to, I could carry out, no matter what my circum7stances. It meant more than doing as I would be done by, which implies asubtle hint of a bargain. It meant focusing on the other fellow, and focusingon the situation we were in. trying to bring out its best possibilities by arealistic appraisal, which unflinchingly saw things as they were—but neverforgot things as they might he.

Mr. Hynd pointed out that those who hold the Ethical faith know thattheir fervour must be guided by knowledge, and more light be sought as wellas more warmth. He told how the Ethical Religion was founded on theinsights of 'the Christian faith. and also of the Hebrew faith. But further, itutilised all possible insightsthose of wise men and women. past and present,anywhere: in any walk of life or field of endeavoilr—an ancient Buddhaor a Shakespeare or a Lincoln, or a modern Schweitzer; and, also all theinsights of science that could be fruitful for bettering our lot. It paid homageto that best in the human mind and heart which has brought us out ofthe medieval filth and ignorance responsible for much degradation andsuffering. In short, all possible sources of help and enlightenment weretapped by the Ethical faith.12

To feed one's mind, to search one's heart with criticism, and then turncreatively towards others, trying to build in every act of one's life the bestrelations and the best conditions possible—here was something to live for—and by—till one's last breath. This I was determined to do. I knew that.thededicated mind had surmounted and bypassed vast obstacles. I now had mylife's purpose, my commitment. When, later, I heard the able historian,David S. Muzzey another Ethical Society leader, my conviction wasclinched. He explained beautifully how men's beliefs had changed throughthe ages—but always there was "high and higher and highest"—and howwe could serve this with a deep religious zeal, lighted by quiet, informedreason, in every phase of our living.

Having now some knowledge of the Ethical Society, I wished to learnmore about it. I was physically unable to take a mobile part in the activities.But I could practise the.Ethical faith every hour, and lift myself above mysuffering with this aspiration. My family, my friends, my doctors and nurses,my chance contacts, and the many good causes involving human beings inthe great Outside world—all these were occasions for significance; and so Isaw my horizons widened far beyond my narrow little sickroom.

"Glory to God in the highest"—that is a deeply moving age-old cry of •

reverence. "Glory to man in the highest" is no less a dignifying rallying cry.It is, indeed, the ideal of democracy. And though we cannot wholly realiseideals, at the moment when we cease to pursue ideals as goals, decay beginsin us, and in society.

Obviously, in an imperfect world-there will always be a gap between ourideals and our deeds. Yet one who is committed to the Ethical faith mustthink constantly in terms of precise actions: "Where is the right in thissituation? How can I make the best of all its possibilities? No situation isever too large or too small for this careful Weighing, this creative trying.Of course, we often fail—being human. But the challenge and the aspirationnever fail, That is why the faith I found, after I lost my childhood faith,gives constant nourishment to my heart and mind. How could life ever bedull or meaningless when you are drawing meaning from it, and puttingmeaning into it, always, any time, anywhere?

Faith-Conditioned ImnioralityB Y

TOM HILL

"i believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse tomankind—that its modest and greatly over-esiimated services onthe ethical side have been more than overborne by the damage ithas done to clear and' honest thinking."-11: L. MENC'KEN.

IN GENERAL, the Hungarians are very staunch Catholics; as such theY ought to have waited in confidence until it pleased the Lord to change Iheir lot and deliver them from a regime they considered unjust.* Yet here again so

* Here we are not concerned with the merits or demerits of this particularuprising but with the fact that this rebellion, which Mindszenty hailed as "awonderful thing" and which his Hierarchy openly aided and abetted, appearsto be a flagrant violation of the scriptural teaching to "render unto Caesar"his due (Matth. xii. 21) and to be "... calm and meek, To take one blow, andturn the other cheek."

13

often reality and professed belief do not tally. Rather than rebel againstGod-sent authority, they ought to have trusted that sooner or later the Lordwill again undo what He might have sent them as their righteous punish-ment.

Whilst decrying the vanity of this •"Vale of Tears", believers will go toany length in protesting their deep conviction thai what solely matters forthe eternal Soul is After-life. However, they are the ones most scared ofdeath and extinction, which does not bear out any confidence in the Gloryof Paradise.

Such experiences seem to show that all the idle talk of the steadyinginfluence of religion is nothing but hot air: religion is a more or lesssuperimposed mental attitude which, if ever it affects our very existence,only leads to a split personality and a morale with false bottom.

"Do not worry for the morrow-, the believer will tell us. "If you 'deeplytrust ihe Lord, you can swallow poison and handle snakes withoutimpunity." But will /ze---prior to his mind having completely cracked up?

So what's the good of all this early and continuous indoctrination if afterall nobody in his proper senses can really believe what he pretends tobelieve, as he has to act and react differently? Yet most people are even nolonger able to realise the discrepancy between sanity and indoctrination.

The other day a panel of supposedly well-educated men went in a B.B.C.discussion so far as to agree that no sane person any longer believes in theliteral Meaning of the Adam-and-Eve story and Creation. However, theyhad their indoctrinated subterfuge ready: it is all a beautiful allegory.Fancy, the Lord not allowing Man to gain knowledge (by eating a certainapple) and the talking Snake knowing all the background stories! I canfind this neither beautiful nor morally rewarding.

One member of the panel event •went further by venturing: It is notnecessary at all to believe it as it stands, we can be good Christians withoutit all the same! This being •a B.B.C. team, nobody dared tell him thatwithout literal belief in Original Sin, the whole edifice of Christianity fallsto the ground and there was no necessity for• Jesus and his death. Thisdepraved piece of story is in itself something uncouth, which has beenperverting European thinking for centuries; yet not one sane man seemsever to have enquired what in it really is commendable and ethical. Humanparrots have for centuries repeated that Jesus has to be our moral model:and that his quite unnecessary death (if ever he lived) has remainedunequalled as such. Why, if I may ask?

If it comes to religious morale, I must say that the teachings going underthe names of Buddha, Lao-tse or the Upanishads are far superior and makethose of the Gospels (let alone the Old Testament) look like the ravingsof savages.

Speaking of savages: long before religion of any sort existed,•men livedand acted peaceably together, not because some one told them how to behave.but by sheer dint of necessity. Man had to adapt himself within the herdor be exterminated by Nature. What became known as the Golden Ruleimp.osed itself on all human societies; it still makes all religious trimmingsentirely superfluous.

Religion proper only arose together with individual proPerty and preroga-tive; gods had to be invented to sanction and secure the existence ofprivileges of a minority. This exactly is the immoral raison d'etre and itfully explains the unceasing efforts of vested interests to foster atavisticbeliefs and implant them as early as possible in the credulous minds ofour children.

Hence, far from taking it for granted that "it is •good for them, to have14

some religious support in life", it ought to be seen that religious educationrobs them of thc faculty of sane thought; it opens the door to hypocrisy,hatred, war, and mental illness. The ethics of the Bible are those ofLevantine crooks and tricksters, members of a half-civilised society ofslave-owners, of wastrels and parasites who could only survive in the condi-tions of oriental antiquity. It is ludicrous and simply impossible to emulatethem today; their upholding as our paramount code of ethics can only.create cranks, hypocrites.and lunatics; or criminals, unless the child in goodtime can rid himself of these harmful influences.

Is it really necessary in this connection to recall •he innumerable instancesof scriptural teaching which flagrantly violate our sense of justice and ourethical standards, such as hatred of parents and family life (Matth. x. 34ff.;Luke xiv. 26); subjection of women (I Tim. ii. 11-12; Gen. iii. 13; Johnii. 4). Tertullian declared women ought to go about in humble garbrepentant of the great sin and shame they have brought over mankind. They -are no better than chattels (Deut. xxi), hence in silence and fear they mustbe kept (I Peter iii). God is tantamount to warfare (Ex. xv. 3; Matth. x. 24)and to slavery (Ex. xxi. 6; 1 Tim. vi. 1; Titus ii. 9; Eph. vi. 5). Slaves andbondsmen be subject in fear to your master (I Peter ii. 18: Hungarians,hear!). He who does not believe in Christ is already condemned (John iii.18); Jehovah's savage cruelty (Deut. ii. 33ff.; Joshua xi'. 11; Sam. i. 15;1 Kings xx. 42 or x. 9ff.); instructions in cheating (Ex. xi. 2; 2 Kings ix.10-13); Judges xvii; Joshua xix. 40ff.: Ex. xxxii. 29). .

Is it necessary for your child to ponder the meaning of the seventhCommandment, not to commit adultery? And to grow up with a sin-complex and the life-long stark vision of the crucifixion 'and the necessityof a writhing, blood-stained corpse; why need he try to reconcile hisscientific education with the primitive notions of night-shined angels, hell-fire and Mary's bodily assumption to Cloudland? The Pope in particulardenies any individual freedom: he knows best what you ought to believe,to read or not to read• parents allowing their children to attend a publicschool are to be excluded from the sacraments of his church; there is nosuch thing as liberty of speech, of conscience, of religion or of the press..Leo XIII denied that the multitude had any right to decide democratically.Yet it is correct to pray for—or against, as the case may be—rain orsimilar calamities, such as sickness which God in the first instance has seenright to ordain.

How can I trust people who in everything take their orders from theirspiritual "superiors"? Who are permitted to cheat if it furthers the "Gloryof the Lord"? Who have no morale or conscience of their own, but onlyact in conformity with their hope for reward in after-life (or fear of punish-ment), a really despicable yardstick of ethical behaviour? The powerfuldeterrent to crime is society and its admonitions, not god; if a fictitious godis made the basis of your ethical outlook, this is the result:. Among the inmates of the Minnesota State Prison, at Stillwater, the figures

• for June 30, 1952, gave the following indications of religious beliefs:

Catholics 36.79 per cent Mohammedans 0.10 per centLutherans 7 6.91 Jews.... 0.40„Methodists 10.08 Not practising 2.92 „Baptists.. 5.64 Presbyterians.. 2.32 „Other Protestants 14.82

The Catholic Chaplain of the prison reported: "The number of menreceiving Holy Communion attests the devotion and spiritual concern intheir lives." The Protestant opposite number reports that "the Sacrament ofthe Lord's Supper has been administered quarterly". Church membership or

15

attendance had little or no effect upon criminality or delinquency (E. H.Sutherland, University of, Indiana).

C. V. Dunn found that the proportion of members of religious sects inprison was higher than that of the general population. Dr. J. R. Minerfound "that there is little evidence that the churches play any major rolein the prevention of crime". Franklin Steiner found that "out of 85,000convicts, 68,000 or 80 per cent decisively expressed their preference asChristians. There were 5,389 of the Jewish faith.. .•. The avowed infidels or•atheists were microscopic, just 150." (Report by Professors Barnes andTeeters.)

Professors Hartshorne and May found Sunday-school children less honestthan non-attenders. (The Liberal, U.S.A. March 1956).. Indian official police figures state that delinquency among Christians is fivetimes higher than among the Hindus. Father Ford, Catholic Chaplain atColumbia University, admits that three-fifths of the juvenile delinquentsarrested in 1953 in New York were Roman Catholics, yet only one-fifthof the city's population is Catholic. Bishop Gallagher of Detroit said:

"It is a matter of serious reproach to the Church that more Catholicboys in proportion to the total number get into trouble than those of anyother denomination. One-fifth of the people of Michigan are Catholics,but 50 per cent of the boys in the Industrial School for Boys at Lansingare Catholic." (Quoted after Ira D. Cardiff.)Although most of the great afflictions of mankind eventually can be traced

to their religious upbringing, vested interests will still maintain the necessityand excellence of their particular brand of god-belief. Any lie repeated overand over again in a voice that does not allow the shade of doubt, iseventually accepted as indisputable "gospel truth" (as already the late NaziPropaganda Minister knew).• The fallacious notion of the indispensability of religious upbringing isquite reminiscent of Andersen's tale of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Everyone protests his admiration of the inimitably marvellous (religious) garbwithout ever having seen the proof nor asked for one. It wants the unsophis-ticated, unspoilt child to exclaim: "But look, he's all but naked, morally.-

HadiianB Y

G. I BENNETT

WHETHER THE successor of the Emperor Trajian was finally and formallYadopted by the great Roman soldier ruler on his death-bed has ever been asubject of speculation. Trajan's life had been spent amongst legionaries. Inone war after another he had added extenSively to the lands of the Empirein the East, carrying the Roman eagle to the remote shore of the PersianGulf. His young cousin Hadrian had accompanied him on a few of hismilitary adventures, notably the first and second Dacian wars (a.D. 101-106).and under him had been fairly rapidly promoted to positions Of largeresponsibility.

One would not have called Trajan subtle. Big and powerful in frame.he was bluff and good-humoured, with a tendency to the rough, simple jestsof the common. soldier. Although of Spanish origin, like Trajaffi Hadrianwas a man of entirely opposite disposition and cast of mind. Even as a boy,he had had a master passion for things Greek, 'and it was not for nothingthat he had then been nicknamed -the little Greekling". Artistic and volatilein temperament, swift of intelligence, full of boundless curiosity, a tinier Of16

scholarship and culture, he can hardly have been understood by Trajan;and, despite the high offices with which he was entrusted—culminating ingovernorship of Syria—he was never on terms of intimate confidence withthe old emperor.• How are we to explain Trajan's tardiness in nominating his imperial heir?Did he feel some reluctance to decide in favour of the younger man, enter-taining for him a certain mistrust, jealousy, or even secret dislike? Or washis postponement of a necessary decision to a dangerously late hour theact of a robust man, confident that he had still useful active years beforehim? Even more to the point, did Trajan, suddenly taken seriously ill inSilicia on his return journey to Rome, agree as he lay dying to Hadrian'sassuming the imperial purple? Or was his nomination of Hadrian a cleverfiction and forgery on the part of the emperor's wife, Plotina? (She at leasthul always been his close friend and was as concerned as any that he shouldinherit the throne.) We shall never know. But however it may be, no manwas more worthy than Hadrian of the imperial station. Yet at the outsetof his reign something happened that did not augur well for the future.

Hadrian was at Antioch, his Syrian headquarters, when news reached himon August 9, 117, that he had been adopted by -Trajan as his heir, and, aday later, that the old soldier prince had passed away. The Syrian governorwas now emperor of Rome! He did not return immediately to the capital(there was a disturbance in Dacia to quell), and would not have returnedas soon as he did but for the summary execution of four consulars of sena-torial rank who were supposed to have entered into conspiracy against him.

Hadrian always denied any part in these executions. He blamed his pre-torian prefect, Attianus, for them, attributing to him excess of zeal, anddismissed him from his post to demonstrate his disapproval of the wholeaffair. Coming at the beginning of his empery, however, the incident puthim intd bad odour with the Senate and stirred its fears. Yet to that vener-able institution Hadrian was unfailingly deferential and respectful; andin the years that followed all went fairly well, until towards the close of hisreign. Then the execution of two more senators, the aged Servianus andhis grandson, alleged • pretenders to the throne, again brought him intodisrepute. •

Hadrian did not pursue •Trajan's conquests. An able and exPeriencedsoldier, he was nevertheless unattracted to warfare. But more than that, heperceived how ruinous to the Empire,.financially, and in cost of that thenextremely precious commodity, human life, had been Trajan's campaigns.A continuation of his predecessor's course would have brought the far-flungRoman world, severely strained in war and in coping with the administrationof the- new territories acquired by war, to swift and certain breakdown. Inthe East Hadrian at once made amicable settlement with the disaffectedpeoples, relinquishing Trajan's conquests east of the Euphrates—Armenia,Mesopotamia, Assyria, Parthia—and, withdrawing to the old Syrian frontierof Augustus, retained only Dacia. In the west, he withdrew altogether fromScottish territory.

In the years that followed Hadrian was to make it amply clear thatRoman power, under him, threatened no one. His primary object was peace,and to that end he devoted himself untiringly and with splendid singlenessof purpose. But his peace policy did not rely simply on removing the causesof provocation to the tribes on the periphery of the Empire. In long yearsof travel in both East and West, when probably not a province remainedunvisited, Hadrian inspected for himself the frontier fortifications: thesewere extended, modified, and strengthened wherever he considered necessary.The Roman Wall in Britain from Tyne to Solway, impressive still in itscenturies-long decay, is eloquent testimony to the durability and thorough-ness of his defensive planning.

17

The problem he faced was to ensure that under conditions of peace theArmy remained an efficient, athletic force, manning the outposts of civilisa-tion against the encroachments of barbarism.

None can dispute that, as a military disciplinarian, Trajan's successor wasa model. When with his legions, he led the soldiers' open-air camp life,asked nothing better than their rough plain fare, and frequently accompaniedthem on foot on 20-mile marches in full military accoutrement, alwaysbareheaded, and indifferent alike to the bleak winds of Britain and theburning heat of the African sun.

On record is his claim that he had won much more by diplomacy thanby force of arms. It was no empty boast. Throughout the length andbreadth of a vast world, extending far beyond the Mediterranean aroundwhich it had grown up, Judea was the only province that gave serioustrouble. And this might well have been avoided but for Hadrian's oneextraordinary breach of good sense. Finding Jerusalem a miserable desola-tion—a grim witness to its rebellion and subsequent suppression under Titus—the emperor ordered its rebuilding as a Roman town with the name ofAelia Capitolina. He peopled it with Greeks, forbidding Jews to enter it, andon the .site of the Temple the worship of Jupiter was to replace that ofJehovah. Nothing could have been more calculated to incense the Jews.They rose again in implacable fury, and three years of sanguinary struggleagainst Rome ensued, with its inevitable outcome—the liquidation of theJewish insurgents. But everywhere else the foundations of Peace werefirm-laid. From beginning to end Hadrian laboured indefatigably tO estab-lish order and the rule of justice. The halcyon years.of the long reign of hissuccessor, Antoninus Pius, proved how well his work had been done.

More than half of Hadrian's principate of twenty-one years was spentaway from Rome, touring the provinces from Spain to Syria, from Britainto Africa. His travels began in 121 when he was forty-five years old; apartfrom a brief spell of a year or less back home in Rome, in 127, they werenot over till about 134. On One or two of his sightseeing and, therefore,less arduous, pleasanter journeys his wife Sabina accompanied him. She waswith him in Egypt certainly, in Greece probably, and possibly in Asia Minor,Africa and Syria. Everywhere he went he authorised the making of newroads, bridges, aqueducts, and forts; the erection of monuments and temples;the building of streets and towns; and he also founded libraries and uni-versities. He saw to it that backward industries received assistance and thatagriculture was encouraged. Under him imperial postal communicationswere improved; the civil service was Te-organised; the Roman law codified;humane regulations as to the treatment of slaves strictly enforced; all aspectsof administration in Italy and in the provinces overhauled; imperial officialspunished severely for corruptive practices; and public accounts subjectedto careful scrutiny. Nothing was too great or too small to claim Hadrian'sattention; his sharp eyes noted everything.

He did not travel simply out of a sense of duty, although no man wasever more conscientious in the discharge of duty. He had an insatiablelove of travel, and a vast curiosity that only seeing things for himself couldsatisfy. A day was to come, as he well knew, when he would no longer bephysically able to make these journeys. He accordingly made provision forthis in the villa he built for himself at Tibur, commenced early in his reign.Situated in lovely country in the Sabine Hills some 16 miles north-east ofRome, it possessed an estate, two-and-a-palf square miles in extent, contain-ing in miniature replicas of the buildings, with their gardens, fountains,groves, and colonnades, that had most fascinated and delighted the imperialtraveller in his restless wanderings.

Throughout life Hadrian had a passion for hunting and riding. He alsoloved to climb mountains to view, from a point of vantage, 'both land andIS

sea, and behold the break of dawn and the setting of the sun.A widely cultured, many-sided man, generous in his patronage of learn-

ing, the emperor included amongst his interests art, music, literature, archi-tecture, archaeology, and history. Religion does not 'appear to have hadother than mild interest for him, although he was drawn irresistibly toastrology and other means of divining the future. Philosophical discoursesattracted him; but despite his leaning to Epicureanism (of which his goodfriend, the Empress Plotina, had been an adherent) it does not seem thathe ever attached himself to any one school. Greece was his spiritual andintellectual home; and on Athens, its heart and centre, he bestowed morefavours than on any other place. Twice, possibly thrice, he sojourned there,reluctant to leave. Of all Roman monarchs he was the most hellenised andthe most versatile. But in literature his taste was odd, for he preferred Catoto Cicero, Ennius to Virgil, Antimachus to Homer. Although he evidentlywrote a fair amount of light verse, little has survived: and of that, only theoft-quoted lines of apostrophe to his soul beginning- "Animula, vagula,blandula", penned by his dying hand in his last illness, are considered tohave real merit. .

In studying the life of Hadrian it is difficult not to feel overwhelmed atthe number and range of his pursuits and achievements. He must have beena baffling character to his contemporaries; to us he is hardly less so. Hismind was too subtle and mobile, his aesthetic sensibilities too many andvaried, for most people to understand him. He could •be admired but notloved. Yet—to his credit—he was, until ill-health spoilt . his disposition,eminently approachable.and rebuked those who would deprive him of his"enjoyment of humanity" by reminding him of his imperial dignity. It issaid that a woman with a petition once placed herself in his way. "I haveno time now", he told her. "Then be emperor no longer ! she cried.Whereupon he stopped and granted her request.

-With the Senate, however, he never altogether lived down the badimpression created from the first by the death (of which he may have beeninnocent) of its four consular members; and he incurred its hatred by Theexecution of Servianus and his grandson on the suspicion (it may or may nothave been more) that they were scheming for the throne he was soon tovacate. Thus it is scarcely surprising that, after his death, Antoninus hadsome difficulty in getting that august body to accord the departed emperorthe divine honours which, by Roman custom, were his due. But hislast years were not happy•and, afflicted by painful illness, he became morosein temper:unreliable and hasty in judgment, and liable to dangerous fits ofpassion.

Some writers have dwelt at nauseous length on his improper relations withhis boy favourite, Antinous, whose•tragic death by drowning while accom-panying the emperor down the Nile was bitterly lamented by him. "For allwe know, it was a pure enough friendshiP', wrote B. W. Henderson; andF. H. Hayward in effect supports him by remarking, "Evil be to him thatevil thinks." The weight of literary opinion is against them. Antinous wouldseem to have been the emperor's Ganymede. And yet, in this as in certainother circumstances surroundineThis enigmatic man, lack of actual evidenceforces us back on conjecture.

On all his travels Hadrian regulated his personal life with almost spartansimplicity, although in outlook and by temperament he was a hedonist wholost few opportunities of doing that which afforded him keenest enjoyment.He was no paragon of private virtue and would not have claimed to beHis fame rests on his greatness as an administrator of far-sighted genius.and on his numerous works of public benefaction. His marriage, whichapparently had been none too happy, had remained childless; and the lastgreat problem that faced him was the adoption of an heir. His first choice,

19

Aelius Verus, a handsome young nobleman of -refined taste but voluptuousways, did not promise well. Fortunately for the Empire, Aelius Verus's earlydeath made a second choice necessary; and this,has been aptly described byone biographer, Gregoroyius, as "Hadrian's dying gift to humanity and, ofhis numerous benefits, his greatest." It consisted in the selection of threepersons (the first two only matter): Antoninus, a:fifty-one years old Romansenator, a man of blameless life respected by all, to be immediate heir, withMarcus Aurelius and Aelius Verus's young son, Lucius, as his successors.

The sick and weary emperor, his last duty done, retired to his villa atBaiae in Campania; there he expired in the high summer of A.D. 138 in thesixty-third year of his age. His final moments, one imagines, were calm anduntroubled. He had,laboured to the end to make the Roman world secure--with such satisfying evidence of success. No man could have done better.The future was assured for years to come. Aiiloninus Pius could be reliedon to continue his work of consolidation; and after him, one for whom thedying Hadrian had a special, almost fond, regard—the austerelY philosophicMarcus. A mere youth now, but tomorrow....

Cause indeed there was for satisfaction. Who could hope to have achievedmore for the Empire? In its service he had spent himself:

Even If No Prayer . . .

B Y

GEORGE E O'DELL

GOOD RESOLUTIONS USED, in more naive times, to be in order at any time.They are less often made today. But are they foolish? Even to make themand observe them only intermittently may be a means of growth. Supposethat we make an unusual resolve: that we will often- think thankfully ofthe good work done in the world and of those who do it.

Perhaps the nearest thing I know to a creed for my own belief and faithis Dante Rossetti's Soothsay. incidentally the poet says:

"Even if no prayer uplift thy face -Let the sweet right to render graceAs thy sours cherished child be nursed."

Grace, yes, grace within, awakened and called forth. We are niggardly inour recognition of human labour, especially of the hand. Once, in a longago January, I was privileged to share in official rejoicings at the com-pletion of a great building, a Court of Law. From near and far camejudges, mayors, councillors, clergymen, editors, to acclaim both the purposesof the edifice and its majestic appeal to the eye. The architects and con-tractors were highly praised for the splendour of the design and theperfection of its realisation. "But," I said (in a bare whisper) to one of thoseconcerned, "where are the men who erected it all?" "Oh," he answered,"we invited one of them, as a representative, to be present." And indeedthere did sit one "horny-handed son of toil"—in the back row!

We live in an amazing world, whether we think of the Natural Order orof the immense creative power of Man. Look with open and imaginativeeye at the infinite complexity of civilisation's goods. Millennia of causesand influences lie behind each of us: we are all, in our daily environmentproducts of thousands of forebears through thought, discovery, invention.construction, teaching, example, opportunity, and, especially if we areplanners or actual makers of things we add to the score, as do all thediligent producers by hand or brain. Do we ever look with childlike vision20

at the house we live in, the neat finish of each surface, or at our clothes,our food, our domestic implements—or as we loiter in, say, a Woolworth'samidst the vast multitude of its cheapCand "common" contents—or as wetravel in a bus or train, and let ourselves wonder at the marvel of eachitem of our existence and of it all?

Well, sometimes we do remember to think thankfully of our preceptors,pastors, writers, statesmen, architects, inventors, enterpreneurs, managers,especially if we belong with them ourselves; sometimes we erect memorialsto them as we do to our fightine dead. And rightly so. But let us be proudalso--and as much—of those on whose backs as Leo Tolstoy said, we alllive and without whom we would quickly die. But, it is protested, are theynot paid? As, for our honest work, are we? Yet let us resolve that in thisNew Year we shall more often have "grace," be gracious, give in spirit ifnot in overt word, thanks to the immense army of smiters of coal and ore,the builders of machines, and the constructors of our uncountable goodsand gadgetry. Let us thank, when the customary time comes, the Lord ofthe Harvest (if we do) but also the harvesters.

Conway DiscussionsON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, Mr. F. C. Sondhi (Vice-President of the HinduAssociation of Europe) spoke on "The Essence of Hinduism". He said thatthe religion of 85 per cent of the population of India, i.e. 300 million inhabi-tants, was Hinduism, one of the four great religions of the world. He didnot 'think the ethics of Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam were inferior, butbelieved the essence of all religions were' identical. As in Hinduism they allemphasised righteousness, mercy, straightforwardness, humility, sincerity,truthfulness, purity, tolerance, and a love of God, and a belief in "Do untoothers as you would be done by". Hinduism was concerned with the inner-most nature, and the leading of a perfect life.

Other religions were founded by prophets and saints but Hinduism wasthe result of the work of reformers. Although many deities were,spoken of,the Hindu believed in one God, who was good, and saw all with equal eyeswithout discrimination. The whole 'universe was created by him -and sus-tained by him; this supreme soul was all-perviding, and thus the body wasa temple of God and should be kept pure and clean.

Indian civilisation began in the forests which gave shelter from sun andstorm. Hinduism had its being in the forest. The town separated man fromunion with God, so the Hindu would rise early and go out to stream andriver and forest, and meditate in the sun, and in this way achieved peaceof mind and contentment. The Hindu, as in ancient Scriptures, thought ofnature as a manifestation of the Almighty. In India today were two cul-tures, one wishing to see the country industrialised, and the other seekingto retain the natural surroundings to ensure peace of soul.

According to ancient scriptures, idol worship was not practised, but thiscustom grew up at a time when people were ignorant, and came to believethat the statues put up to reformers were the gods themselves. Idol worshipwas not discouraged, however, for it was harmless and showed humility.Hinduism was not rigid, with set rules of behaviour; it was an individualreligion, which men could practise in the way they thought best.

The Hindu today was reverting to the class system of the ancient scrip-tures, where class was determined 'by action and not by birth. There werefour classes, the Brahmins, or priest class to impart knowledge; the warriorsor soldiers to protect the country; the class to cultivate land and protecttrade; and finally there were the manual workers. As class systems were

21

bound to exist, this was the least harmful, as men belonged because oftheir work.

Hinduism believed in reincarnation. The soul was immortal and imperish-able, and left the body to enter another form of life, either human oranimal according to the good or evil acts of the previous existence.Emphasis was laid upon sacrifice. As all nature seemed to sacrifice itself,so man must do likewise. Renunciation was practised but this did not meanwithdrawing from the world, but renouncing pride, egotism, selfish desires,lust and anger, and so becoming spiritualised. One should be cheerful, sweetand uncomplaining, and in thinking ',always of God, spiritualise one'sactivities. There was a strong belief in disinterestedness, that is, the doingof duty without reward, and selfless service to humanity. There should beuniversal love for all people and creatures. Possessions limited the soul, andthought for personal comfort separated one from others. One should resistgreed, and to gain one's soul must give away, and share the joys andsufferings of all. The scriptures spoke of hospitality, of doing no injury bythought or deed; of speaking ill of none, and living in love and harmonywith all. This was thc essence of Hinduism.

L. L. B.

CorrespondenceHiller and NasserTo the Editor; The Monthly Record

Dear Sir,I cannot agree that Kruger is'the true historical counterpart to Nasser

(Custos in The Monthly Record), "Oom Paul" was a dour fundamentalistWho heavily taxed the Uitlanders (British and• American) and denied thempolitical rights; and naturally they were not prepared to put up with it.Amongst the Uitlanders were Jews; but I do not think that Kruger or theBoers were particularly 'anti-semitic. Things may be different now, Of course.

I dare say the same division of opinion occurs in the Ethical Society asexists in the country, about the Suez Crisis. This is not the place for adetailed discussion, but I merely place on record my opinions That had theBritish and French dealt with Hitler in the early stages, we should haveavoided the late consequences; and that Hitler and Nasser are comparableevils. "Verb Sap."

Yours faithfully,S. CROWN.

•

South Place NewsSunday Socials

On October 21 Eric Batson. the energetic secretary of the Shaw Society,gave a talk entitled "The Theatre Triumphant". We might add to that—Eric Batson and the Audience Triumphant. We feel sure the latter had notenjoyed so hilarious a Pleasant Sunday Afternoon for years. Eric gave hisbest: excerpts from Shaw's plays, recitations, stories of Shaw and of thetheatre—not omitting that important section, the repertory theatre.

Had the piano been open, he would have given a complete vaudevilleentertainment of sparkling brilliance. His enthusiasm was infectious. Whatmore can we say but thank you, Mr, Batson.

Victor Howlett provided a "new look" for Westminster Abbey when hegave a talk with lantern slides on November 18: -A Humanist in WestminsterAbbey". Mr. Howlett has ,a talent for making.his talks interesting and thisone proved to be no exception.

Thursday Evening SocialsMr. Thurdin's film show on November I was appreciated by a good

audience. With films grave and gay, including the inevitable "CharlieChaplin", a profitable evening was enjoyed.

On November 22 Miss I. Percival spoke on "Epitaphs". A very mixedbag of comic and serious was provided. Miss Percival had• made a mostcomprehensive collection of epitaphs which she gave to her audience, andshe included a reading from Walter De La Mare.

A musical evening given by G. C. Dowman and friends was a greatsuccess. The indispensable Joyce Langley was of course at the piano andshe was supported by Marie Louise (soprano), Muriel Ditterlee (mezzo),Peter Mander (baritone), and these excellent artists were introduced by JackCummins, who made a most welcome reappearance at these socials. Itwould be invidious to pick out any individual excellences, as all were firstrate and appreciated accordingly.

Activities of Kindred SocietiesOrpington Humanist Group

On Sunday. November 11, J. B. Coates spoke on "Humanism andExistentialism". The relationship between the various existentialisms,personalism and humanism was very plainly worked out and evoked a spate •of questiohs from those present. The Speaker said that Sartre calls existen-tialism a humanism because in his view it shows "bad faith" to believethat there is any way in which a man can escape from the responsibility forethical choice—ways such as listening to the voice of God or finding truth inthe Scriptures. The "anguish" of the person is the anguish of the man whorealises he must find his own meaning in life without any of the propssupplied by social custom or traditional religious faith. The characteristic ofthe leading existentialists, of Berdyaev, of Jaspers, of Sartre, is that theyhave worked their way through to their own (often heroic) solutions, notonly of their own personal problems but of the social problems of the world,because a part of the anguish of the individual is that he-is bound in reasonto accept responsibility for the whole world, seeing that whatever he doesaffects the whole world.

Chiswick Humanist GroupJanuary 6, at 7.30 p.m. at 40 Staveley Road. T. Stephenson (Secretary,

Ramblers' Association): "Access to the Countryside."

Society's Other ActivitiesConway Discussions. Tuesday evenings at 7.15 p.m.

January 8—Social evening. A Robertson, MA. "My Visit to Russia."and W. E. Swinton, Ph.D. "My Visit to Mexico."

IS—Colin McCall. "A Sechlarist Looks at Humanism."22—Dr. Hyman Levy. "The problem of ethical instruction in

unethical social order."29—H. D. Jennings-White, M.A., Ph.D. "A Criticism of Colin

Wilson's book 'The Outsider'."

'Friday Discussion Group (for per§ons under 35. years: of,ag'ef4+'N, ,-Friday at 7.30;p.m. .... ' . . .

..- anuary 4-.Guilfoyle Williams "Religion for the Rational."11—Being arranged. ..:. `

r•-, •18Being arranged. ; ...:.

- 2.:- , , 25—J. Wren-Lewis "Humanism from the butsidelooking in.". . .. -• . , 9, . -:.../'On .Friday, December 4, the Hon. Mrs. R. Bower - addresied the Friday .,

Group, and said afterwards : "TheFriday Group 'is a creaive discussiongroup, open to, everyone under thirty-five years of age. Iisi, purpose is toarouse eontroversy and 'interest in vital subjects." 1 .1'.

. ., .

Sunday Social . . . - ' ..

.January 20 a1 3 p.m. in the ,Library. Mr. H..'Cittner: "Who 'was

Shakespeare?". ... .

Thursday Evening Socials at 7 p.m: in the LibraryJanuary 3—No Meeting.

10—Whist Drive.17—Geo. E. O'Dell: "Ten Tales of Odd Folk."24Miss D. Walters: Dramatic Readings.3I—J. A. Sandapan: "The Seychelles."

Ramble •Saturday, January 19 : Joint ramble with the London National History

Society: Archaeology — Stepney Church and Stepney Green: Conducted byMiss J. Darlington, M.A., Librarian L.C.C. Meet at Church, Stepney HighStreet; EA., 2.30 p.m. Stepney Green Station (District Line), walk up WhiteHorse Larne.

The Library, Conway HallThe Librarian will be in attendance on Sunday mornings and Tuesday

and Thursday evenings.

Esperanto•

Mr. Leslie, Secretary of the British Esperanto Association, Inc., and oneof our own enthusiastic Members„(S.P.E.S.), has offered to conduct a studygroup in Esperanto, with a view to .enabling members to know enough ofthe language to be able to converse with Esperantist Humanists coming fromabroad in July 1957 for the Conference of the I.H.E.U: Those interestedshould write immediately to -the Secretary at Conway Hall.• This step hasbeen been approved by, and has the sympathetic support of, the .GeneralCommittee.

WANTEDThe Jesus Problem by_thelate I. M. Robertson M.A. Will anyone who

is willing to sell a copy 'please communicate with the Bookstall Secretary.

Printed tor Farleigh Press Ltd. (T.U. all depts.), Beerhwood Rise. Watford. Herts.