THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PREJUDICE. 639 



presently find ourselves using them as conceptions regularly- 

 formed. In Goethe's well-turned phrase : 



" Denn eben wo Begriffe fehlen, 

 Da stellt ein "Wort zur rechten Zeit sich ein." 



But if prejudice prevails in philosophy, what shall we say of 

 religion ? The race as a whole is divided into a large number of 

 religious systems, and each system into sects. Every individual 

 apperceives the " eternal truths " from the standpoint of the sect 

 in which he was educated. Rarely does he change from one faith 

 to another, and when he does so it is not often for his peace of 

 mind. Such an " Exodus from Houndsditch," in Carlyle's homely 

 phrase, is accomplished only " in a state of brutal nakedness, scan- 

 dalous mutilation." Why ? Because religious ideas are deep-seated 

 and fundamental. To receive into the mind a group of new and 

 foreign notions of such a kind requires a breaking up and read- 

 justing of the old order such as few can undertake with safety. 

 The very psychological laws that we are studying, however, may 

 teach us that these world-wide differences in opinions are not 

 destructive of the eternal verities of religion, but only that 

 these verities are distorted when narrowed down to fit our par- 

 ticular systems and our individual capacities. 



There is a curious science called the science of interpretation, 

 whose business it is to translate the facts and thoughts of the 

 world into phrases comprehensible to a mind limited to a certain 

 system of ideas. Have we ever stopped to think what a confession 

 of shame such a science carries on its face ? To interpret is, in 

 some sense, to change, to distort. An instructive illustration of 

 this branch of learning may be seen in hermeneutics, or the sci- 

 ence of the interpretation of the Scriptures. Never in any litera- 

 ture were thoughts expressed in so simple, straightforward, and 

 honest language as in the books of the Bible, or in language less 

 in need of interpretation. What this science really has in hand 

 is the pitiful task of fitting a vast variety of thoughts into the 

 limited number of forms of some system of theology. So, every- 

 where, it is a mistake to interpret things. It is better to let Na- 

 ture carry on her work of rectification, by allowing the bare facts 

 of the world to project themselves freely against our minds and 

 be perceived as they are, or make for themselves apperceptive 

 organs. 



Interpretation leads to over-interpretation. This evil becomes 

 prominent in connection with those studies which are not yet 

 exact sciences, such as sociology, ethics, metaphysics, and the- 

 ology. Here, as we know, we very often have to make an allow- 

 ance for the " personal equation " of the author unless, unfortu- 

 nately, belonging to the same party, sect, or school, we have 



