II.

DOUBTLESS the vague thing called literature, and some at least of the mixed multitude called literary men, would exist under Socialism as under every possible social system; nor does the consideration of the class or its wages raise any very special difficulty. The side of human nature that literature addresses will exist in future as in the past, and according to all analogy and the normal law of evolution, unless civilization retrogrades or there be something in Socialism antagonistic, it will expand. In any case, poetry and the relish for beauty and truth will exist, tragedy and comedy will attract, the ever-varied, but still the same, human story will be re-told. New ideas will demand new expression; the power and province of "the word " will increase, however its priests and purveyors be paid. As to the latter, as before mentioned, it cannot be said that the remuneration or the mode in which it is given is satisfactory at present, though there has been improvement. Great as is the service which men of letters may confer on mankind, great as is the power they wield over the soul, over the social order, society has not known hitherto how to treat them in the matter of wages, nor even comprehended their true function and significance under our present civilization. Fortunately, money is not what poets, philosophers, or true men of letters in general most want, nor can money ever be any measure of the value of their work. They want the exercise of their function, the influence that naturally belongs

to it, liberty and a competence. According to Shelley, the poet, wants "love and fame," and fame he gets if he has so far raised his generation as to feel his special gift. But the better part of his wages comes not from without, whether from fame or money; it comes from himself and the exercise of his art, from "the great poetic heart worth more than all poetic fame," from the vision of beauty, the divination of truth, and the effort that is itself pleasure to shape them forth as an artistic whole.

To find money wages for the true poet who has not been born with a competence, has always been a problem, and it would probably continue so under Socialism, especially as the poet in general both "man and boy has been an idler in the land," and still more as the greatest poets sometimes only impress the world after their death.

It is more important for society to know how to deal with the second great class of literary men, more properly called philosophers, because, let it treat them as it will, it cannot prevent them from having the final controlling word in the great spheres of religion, morals, and politics. To re-state the true and the just in these spheres is in fact their function. The class has existed under all civilizations. With the Jews they were called prophets, and had commanding influence. Under the Greek civilization, when they first appeared in their modern character as searchers for truth, they also enjoyed great consideration, so much so that kings consulted them. At that time, and long after, they lived by lecturing and teaching, for which their pupils paid them, as is

still the case with some of their modern representatives. But in modern times they influence the world chiefly by writing books, by which, however, they cannot live. It is a question what is the proper function of such in a renovated modern society, and how they should be paid. Plato, in his Republic, makes them rulers, as does St. Simon, while Comte assigns to them, under the name of “ positive philosophers," the spiritual power, reserving the temporal for the capitalist class, this separation of functions being supposed to be his great discovery in political science; the real fact being that the philosophic class cannot be prevented from exercising in large measure both spiritual and temporal power, if not at the time and in appearance, yet finally and in substance. As a class they exercise it, though not to the exclusion of the clergy or politicians. As matter of fact, philosophy, and philosophical criticism, seconded by scientific discoveries, have profoundly affected religious belief during the past hundred years; as a matter of fact, all fruitful political wisdom for the last three centuries has emanated from the class in question, which has furnished all intelligible theories of Government and the State; the principles of legislation and taxa. tion; of production, distribution, and trade; of International Law. As a matter of fact, men of the type of Hobbes, Grotius, Locke, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Burke, Bentham, Mill, have exerted great political influence through their books by impressing their views on practical politicians and statesmen; as a matter of fact, that great thing begun in 1789, and still proceeding, called the Revolution, was set agoing

by philosophers; as the reform impulse in England was communicated by the same class of men. Lastly, as a matter of fact, philosophers have produced Socialism; the three founders of its three principal forms, Rousseau, St. Simon, and Karl Marx, were philosophers.

They are powerful for destruction as well as for renovation and construction. They cannot then be prevented from exercising temporal or political power of a certain kind, as well as spiritual, in spite of Comte's prohibition.

The class in general is fitted for either work-its individuals are potentially governors and teachers, though not equally so, and as matter of fact, when any of them have had the opportunity, as they have had it increasingly during the last hundred years in England, France, and Germany, they have generally shown themselves fitted for governing, at least for counselling and legislating; while conversely some of the best rulers and statesmen, from the days of Solomon and Aurelius to our own, have been eminently of the philosophic temperament.

Such being the great power they wield, and cannot be prevented from wielding, it is an important question what should be the acknowledged relation of the State to them. At present there is none in particular, though, in fact, the best of the class usually find their way into chairs, where they serve the State usefully by teaching the élite of the new generation philosophy, moral, historical, and political science; a few enter Parliament, where they form an important counterpoise to the plutocrats; while a few devote their main

time to the production of books; become the wholesale producers of thoughts, of the large new views on politics, economics, and religion, which journalists and essayists distribute, and which politicians in part apply. The philosopher so engaged fills an important function, for which he cannot be paid, and he is even in worse case than the poet, for, in general, the greater his books, the less they will be appreciated, save by the few. How does the new Socialism propose to deal with the class of philosophers? It is silent, for the

most part, on the point, which is the more remarkable as Karl Marx belonged to the class. It is, however, probable that some of the class would, under Socialism, exercise considerable governing power, whether directly or indirectly, certain that others would exercise their present functions of teachers, and there would probably be more of them taken into the teaching body. Whether the philosopher who only writes books could exist in the Socialist state is doubtful, it would depend on how far the taste for books on the severer but more important subjects of religion, philosophy, morals, politics, historical science existed; in general, how far the philosophic spirit prevailed amongst possible readers. Whether the philosopher who attacked the principles of the Socialist polity would enjoy freedom is a question still more doubtful, though such freedom would be at least as necessary then as at present. But however they may be treated, certain it is that the Socialists will have good reason to remember the philosophers if they should ever "enter into their kingdom."

As for the journal which, amongst its other functions,