that is threatened is sure to come to pass. When he is asked to yield to the inevitable, he should learn that procrastination may sometimes be a virtue. By delaying the yielding, the aspect of inevitability may fade away. Among other things he may be delivered from the tyranny of the scientific prognosticators whose knowledge of the machinery of civilization is greater than their faith in the power of man to control it. One is reminded when reading the forecasts of these learned but low-spirited gentlemen of the remarks of Rollo on his first voyage on a steamboat.

His father had elaborately explained the mechanism of the steam engine and the lesson had been thoroughly learned. A fog arose and the steamer anchored, while a small boat was sent out to make sure of its location. Before the boat returned the fog lifted and the captain gave orders to get up steam.

"Father," said Rollo, looking a little alarmed, "then the steamboat will go off and leave the little boat behind."

"No!" said his father.

"Why, yes, father," said Rollo, "the steam will crowd into the cylinder first above the piston

and then below so as to make it move up and down, and the piston will drive the beam, and the beam the crank, and the crank the paddle wheels, and the paddle wheels will carry the boat, along through the water. I think they had better not fire up till they are ready to go." "No," replied his father, "they will not let the steam get into the cylinder."

"How can they help it?" said Rollo.

Then his father explained that there was a stop-cock, which when turned, prevented the steam from escaping from the boiler into the cylinder.

"Then the steam will have to stay in the boiler, and it will keep on increasing till the boiler will burst," said Rollo.

Then his father explained that there was a safety valve which let off the surplus steam. "Is there?" said Rollo.

"Yes," replied his father.

"That's a good plan," said Rollo, "I'm glad of that."

The knowledge of the mechanism of society and of the forces behind it needs to be supplemented by a knowledge of the various contrivances for bringing them under human control.

They are not perfect, but it is remarkable how many explosions they prevent. When we study the safety devices which the wit of man has invented we may join with Rollo in his discreet expression of approbation of what has already been accomplished.

INSTITUTIONS AND OPINIONS

THE great writers of our own age are, we have reason to suppose, the companions and forerunners of some unimagined change in our social condition or the opinions which cement it. The cloud of mind is discharging its collected lightning, and the equilibrium between institutions and opinions is now restoring or is about to be restored.

Shelley, in his Preface to Prometheus Unbound. SHELLEY'S expectation of a sudden revolution that would restore the equilibrium between institutions and opinions is based upon an idea which is held both by the ardent revolutionist and the stubborn conservative. They both act upon a certain conception of "normalcy.” There is, they assume, a normal equilibrium between institutions and opinions. The institution is the embodiment of certain opinions that are held by the people. Any change in opinion disturbs the natural balance, and a violent revolution is likely to follow.

The man of conservative temper dreads this disaster. He takes for granted that the institutions and opinions which he inherited are normal. They are accepted by him as a part of the order of nature, and he is disturbed when they

are questioned by other minds. It is not that he objects to freedom of thought in itself. What he fears are its consequences to the institution to which he is loyal, and of whose usefulness he is assured. He is fearful of a change of opinion, which he looks upon as a form of social disintegration.

The radical idealist, starting from the same assumption, welcomes new thought because it is destructive of an order of things which he believes should be destroyed. When new opinions have overthrown the archaic institutions, they will create new institutions in harmony with themselves. He is inclined to be very literal in his description of the new order, comparing it with the pattern which is in his own mind. He sees it in its entirety and all very good.

But is this fundamental assumption warranted? Granted that there is some relation between institutions and opinions, is it so simple as the eager revolutionist or the anxious conservative imagines? Is the normal and healthy condition one in which people are genially uncritical of their own institutions and undesirous of changing them? Does radical thinking lead necessarily or even usually to violent revolution? On