e human race.

Shaw and Chesterton had, in fact, discovered the social problem.
Today, whether people intend to do anything about it or not, it is
impossible to avoid knowing something about it. But at that date the
idea was general that all was as well as could be expected in an
imperfect world. The trades unionists were telling a different story,
but they could not hope to reach intellectually the classes they were
attacking. Here were men who could not be ignored, and I cannot but
think that it was sometimes the mere utterance of unwelcome truth in
brilliant speech that aroused the cry of "paradox."

I hear many people [wrote Chesterton], complain that Bernard Shaw
deliberately mystifies them. I cannot imagine what they mean; it
seems to me that he deliberately insults them. His language,
especially on moral questions, is generally as straight and solid as
that of a bargee and far less ornate and symbolic than that of a
hansom-cabman. The prosperous English Philistine complains that Mr.
Shaw is making a fool of him. Whereas Mr. Shaw is not in the least
making a fool of him; Mr. Shaw is, with laborious lucidity, calling
him a fool. G.B.S. calls a landlord a thief; and the landlord,
instead of denying or resenting it, says, "Ah, that fellow hides his
meaning so cleverly that one can never make out what he means, it is
all so fine-spun and fantastical." G.B.S. calls a statesman a liar to
his face, and the statesman cries in a kind of ecstasy, "Ah, what
quaint, intricate and half-tangled trains of thought! Ah, what
elusive and many-coloured mysteries of half-meaning!" I think it is
always quite plain what Mr. Shaw means, even when he is joking, and
it generally means that the people he is talking to ought to howl
aloud for their sins. But the average representative of them
undoubtedly treats the Shavian meaning as tricky and complex, when it
is really direct and offensive. He always accuses Shaw of pulling his
leg, at the exact moment when Shaw is pulling his nose.*

[* _George Bernard Shaw_, pp. 82-3.]

Chesterton was, however, in agreement with the ordinary citizen and
in disagreement with Shaw as to much of Shaw's essential teaching.
And here we touch a matter so involved that even today it is hard to
disentangle it completely. I suppose it will always be possible for
two observers to look at human beings acting, to hear them talking,
and to arrive at