ossips. Yet I find even respectable historians of our own and
of foreign countries, after showing that a king was treacherous,
rapacious, and ready to sanction gross breaches in the administration of
justice, end by praising him for his pure moral character, by which one
must suppose them to mean that he was not lewd nor debauched, not the
European twin of the typical Indian potentate whom Macaulay describes as
passing his life in chewing bang and fondling dancing-girls. And since
we are sometimes told of such maleficent kings that they were religious,
we arrive at the curious result that the most serious wide-reaching
duties of man lie quite outside both Morality and Religion--the one of
these consisting in not keeping mistresses (and perhaps not drinking too
much), and the other in certain ritual and spiritual transactions with
God which can be carried on equally well side by side with the basest
conduct towards men. With such a classification as this it is no wonder,
considering the strong reaction of language on thought, that many minds,
dizzy with indigestion of recent science and philosophy, are far to seek
for the grounds of social duty, and without entertaining any private
intention of committing a perjury which would ruin an innocent man, or
seeking gain by supplying bad preserved meats to our navy, feel
themselves speculatively obliged to inquire why they should not do so,
and are inclined to measure their intellectual subtlety by their
dissatisfaction with all answers to this "Why?" It is of little use to
theorise in ethics while our habitual phraseology stamps the larger part
of our social duties as something that lies aloof from the deepest needs
and affections of our nature. The informal definitions of popular
language are the only medium through which theory really affects the
mass of minds even among the nominally educated; and when a man whose
business hours, the solid part of every day, are spent in an
unscrupulous course of public or private action which has every
calculable chance of causing widespread injury and misery, can be called
moral because he comes home to dine with his wife and children and
cherishes the happiness of his own hearth, the augury is not good for
the use of high ethical and theological disputation.

Not for one moment would one willingly lose sight of the truth that the
relation of the sexes and the primary ties of kinship are the deepest
roots of human wellbeing, but to make th