become one with its object is a
high form of unconscious art and rests upon the heart and the mass
feeling of the race. The ancient folk-lore and ballads must have arisen
from some such fusion as this. How unfair, at least unwise, it is to
judge the individual action of the proletaire, when he is made for
action in the mass."

This vague philosophy and transcendental ethics pass naturally enough,
at times, into the feeling of violent revolution, where bomb-throwing,
if not advocated, is emotionally sympathetic.

"Just now," wrote Terry, "there is strong predisposition among the
'reds' to resort to Russian methods. It needs only the occasion, which
must be waited for, and cannot be created. When the 'error' is great
enough, the 'Terror' will surely rise to the occasion. Were it not for
my faith in this, I should be glad to see Humanity lapse back to whence
it came."

In the idealist there is a growing impatience with the world; in his
attempt to react even against Nature and some of the necessary qualities
of men there is such inevitable failure that no moral revolutionist or
anarchist can indefinitely endure the struggle. He is destroyed by his
fundamental opposition to the world which he seeks to destroy.
Therefore, impatiently, weakly, he sometimes breaks out--with a
bomb--even against his philosophy and his temperament.

He is led into contradictions. One of them touches upon his feeling of
"class consciousness." Terry at times, as a transcendental moralist,
rises above this feeling, but his special instinct as a "labour" man
often asserts itself against and in contradiction to his passion for the
oneness of the race. In my intimate association with him I sometimes saw
that, much as he liked me, he felt that I was of another "class." In the
work which resulted in my book, _The Spirit of Labour_, I frequently
came in discouraging contact with this "class" distrust of me--in him
and in others. Marie alone seemed free of it, in her relation to me, and
yet she wrote:

"I think we have a peculiar sympathy for each other, and yet I realise
that in some subtle way there is not that perfect understanding there
ought to be. Just think of what extremes we two come from--how different
our social environment! I know you understand as nearly as is possible
for one of your class, and yet I doubt if you can really sympathise
with the ideas of anarchism which springs naturally from only one
class--the labour class. Do you not