the theory of a science of history can be
plausibly argued, is that all actions whatsoever arise from
self-interest. It may be enlightened self-interest, it may be
unenlightened; but it is assumed as an axiom that every man, in
whatever he does, is aiming at something which he considers will
promote his happiness. His conduct is not determined by his will; it
is determined by the object of his desire. Adam Smith, in laying the
foundations of political economy, expressly eliminates every other
motive. He does not say that men never act on other motives; still
less, that they never ought to act on other motives. He asserts merely
that, as far as the arts of production are concerned and of buying and
selling, the action of self-interest may be counted upon as uniform.
What Adam Smith says of political economy, Mr. Buckle[33] would extend
over the whole circle of human activity.

[Footnote 33: In his "History of Civilization in England."]

Now, that which especially distinguishes a high, order of man from a low
order of man--that which constitutes human goodness, human greatness,
human nobleness--is surely not the degree of enlightenment with which
men pursue their own advantage; but it is self-forgetfulness; it is
self-sacrifice; it is the disregard of personal pleasure, personal
indulgence, personal advantages remote or present, because some other
line of conduct is more right.

We are sometimes told that this is but another way of expressing the
same thing; that, when a man prefers doing what is right, it is only
because to do right gives him a higher satisfaction. It appears to me,
on the contrary, to be a difference in the very heart and nature of
things. The martyr goes to the stake, the patriot to the scaffold, not
with a view to any future reward to themselves, but because it is a
glory to fling away their lives for truth and freedom. And so through
all phases of existence, to the smallest details of common life, the
beautiful character is the unselfish character. Those whom we most
love and admire are those to whom the thought of self seems never to
occur; who do simply and with no ulterior aim--with no thought whether
it will be pleasant to themselves or unpleasant--that which is good
and right and generous.

Is this still selfishness, only more enlightened? I do not think so.
The essence of true nobility is neglect of self. Let the thought of
self pass in, and the beauty of a great action is gone, like the bl