The Dominion. SATURDAY, MARCH 1, 1913. TEE PRIMROSE PATH.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1687, 1 March 1913, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, MARCH 1, 1913. TEE PRIMROSE PATH.

The great modern fallaoy that it is possible _ to get "something for nothing" is at the root of most of the mistaken modern theories at work in the spheres of industry, art, literature, politics, and even religion. It peeps out everywhere, an.d takes innumerable shapesj from the Socialists' political programmo to the books on "success," from the extreme "humanitarian" theory ; that crime can be eliminated without punishing criminals to the tendency of some religious teachers to advocate the adaptatidn of religion to the tastes of those who will not go to church. Tbo Tvhole world, it. would almost appear at times, is conipiring together to get something for nothing, to obtain wealth without iffort, to attain happiness without neriting it, to reap the harvest withmt sowing the seed.. Pain and effort are openly treated as things wholly evil, things which are no mrt of man's inheritance. From iimo to time some brave voico is ■aised against this dark, and driftng hedonism, but they are voiccs irying in the wilderness, and they ilmost escape notice, being overvhelmed by the clamour of the mbb. iYe havo in tho past taken every ipportunity to assist in the combat igainst the great fallacy of "someiiiing for nothing," and we ca'nnot niss tho opportunity to notice the atest voice raised on behalf of lonesty and common-sense. _ At the mn'ual meeting of the Association of Jniversity Women Teachers in Lonion on January 10 last, the principal speaker was Dit. Geraldine E. ELodgson, of Bristol, who made a >rilliant and powerful speech on 'The Theory of the Primrose Path," vith special reference to education, vhich, like everything else, has suf'erecl from tho "great and even paretic growth of belief in the value >f\ systems." Dk. Hodgson took as ier main text a defence by Professor loljies of the method, 'or which it was claimed that it vas based on "the principles of iberfcy." That "the principles of liberty" ire here the principles of' anarchy trs clear enough from the following tatement by Professor Holmes:'If any educational Act is to be efficacious, it will only be that which ends'to help i towards the complete infolding of this life. To be thus lelpful, it is necessary rigorously to ivoid the arrest of spontaneous novements and the imposition of irbitrary tasks. ... If, therefore, he lesson rigorously prepared in this irevity, simplicity, and trust is not mderstood by the child, is not acepted by him as an explanation of he object, the teacher must be varaed of two things—first, not to nsist by repeating the lesson, and, econd, not- to mako the child feel t has made a mistake or' it is not mderstood, because, in so doing, she vill cause him to mako an effort to inderstand, and will thus alter the latural state, which must be used by ier in making her psychological obervation." This biological and psychological jargon is not entirely unamiliar in this country, and al--hough one may laugh at the quaint oily of a doctrine which treats as ivil any "efforf to understand," one nust not suppose that Professor lolhes's theory is merely absurd. !t is an intelligible theory, and- a 'cry noxious one, aiid it is the direct mtcome of that wave of hedonism vhich is sweeping through all the ictivitics of civilised society. The loctrine that work is the primal curse, that men can obtain happiless and comfort without effort and elf-discipline, that pain is an evil— his doctrine will in duo time show tself to mankind to be wholly evil ind certainly productive of misery., 3ut when it is applied to the teachng of children, it is wicked and l-uel, for reasons which Dr. Hobgion stated with admirable and clearness: "It was. not softness and nildness, but bracing and disciplinng that wc-re wanting by a generaion which drugged itself on the ap)roach of physical pain, sacrificed vhat it called its principles for fear if giving offence, and had little or 10 notion of going without anything t really desired. Was this an easy vorld to live in? To bring children lp to avoid every pain, to indulge every inclination, and then to turn ,hem into tho ways of this rough, leedless world, seemed to be somehing very like common cheating." It is not less common cheating to jreach the doctrine of the primrose >ath in other fields than education, ind yet that doctrine _ is being )rcached everywhere. It is the carlinal purpose of tho lladicals and Socialists to encourage the belief hat something can be had for nothng, whether in art, politics, or norals. The biological and psychological jargon of Professor lolmes is tho fibre of all Radical ipologetics. Dr. Hodgson stated no nore than tho fact when she said hat "the prevailing humour of the noment," which is the Dead Sea ruit of a generation of relaxation if discipline in general society, is 'the desire to got rid of all restraint, o disguise thoroughness, and save rouble, to thrust Bills through l'ariament anyhow, so that they got hrough, to popularise everything, to chop your magazine articles into iibloitis. to review ua many books .3 possible in ft no matter

what you say." In the presence of tho great conspiracy to discredit and denounce thoroughness, effort, and tho teachings of exporience, it is tho duty of all those who can to proclaim the fact that it is impossible to get "sonlething for nothing." Tho prevalence of pleasureseeking is a fault which lies at the door of all classes; no class has a monopoly of ihe dread of pain, discomfort, and effort. All classes are to blame. But it so happens that it is the Radical politician—who is quito as often rich as poor—who most profits, in politics, from the encouragement of the great fallacy. Where is the Eadical leader anywhere_ who would hesitate to boast of _ his teaching that economic, ethical, philosophical, and religious problems arc soluble by the people's vote 1 If we are not mistaken, it is a Radical principle that these problems do differ in this way from the problems of the physical sciences. Such addresses as that of De. Hodgson, or such sermons as those of Dean Inge, may achieve no immediate good in tho way of checking either the hedonistic drift or tho activities of those whose policy denies the old simplo virtues of sincerity, honesty, and hard endeavour. They servo a noble purpose, all tho _ same, in nourishing the fidelity and courage of those men and Iwomen, of all classes, who realise that the world cannot bo set right by legislative denials of the social principles which have remained intact and indestructible sinco society began— those principles which amount, in the sum, to the principle that nowhere —whether in industry, in education, in art, in literature, in religion—are there "short cuts," "inspirational solutions," or any means of getting something for nothing.