undamental reform of education
is perfected. There are no connecting links of argument. It is a
natural corollary, justified by any particular example that may be
traced.

It is another question whether education or lack of it is more
calculated to hasten the ultimate ideal of well-ordered anarchy, which,
consciously or unconsciously, we all entertain; but for the meanwhile
the affirmative assumption must be adopted. The sole remaining
question, then, is, By what means is education to rectify the immediate
evils?

While it is fairly generally established that the purpose of education
is efficient citizenship, it is clear that, owing to the diminished
proportion of the individual to the community, the purpose is being
gradually lost sight of. To borrow from scientific phraseology, the
tendency of the unit to remaining an "idiot" (in the Greek sense of the
word!) varies directly as the magnitude of the mass. And this is a
truism that public schools do not help to abolish. Although "school
patriotism" is invariably quoted as a denial of this, there prevails in
modern schools a definite inclination towards unsentimental cynicism in
the matter. This does not necessarily denote an unhealthy spirit, but
an increase of intellect that, whether with justification or not,
vaguely asks for something wider or more substantial.

Perhaps our grandfathers are right when they tell us that the modern
youth becomes a man sooner than his predecessors. Perhaps our
grandfathers are right when they tell us it is a pity.

However that may be, the two facts remain, that there is a rather
benighted tendency in the direction of intellectual activity, which the
public school spirit makes no effort to assist, and that the public
schools are inclined to produce gentlemen rather than citizens. Of
course the former make better advertisements. Yet they ought not to.
They would not in Germany. One day they will not here. The instance
shows that the Chestertonian "England of Romance" is really the one
that exists. The word "gentleman" is purely a romantic one, and a
gentleman a purely romantic though enviable figure. A state in the
future will not be able to thrive on gentlemen: it will need citizens.

It has cost me dear to write down this, for in my illogical mind (and
no one, by the way, save a politician, could have a logical one!) I
would choose without hesitation the gentleman. But that is probably
because, if I could, I would