386 SYMBIOGENESIS 



All experience of human life goes to support the almost 

 paradoxical view that aristocracy comes to an end with its 

 arrival, that it shows little permanence, that a real 

 and lasting inequality of men will not establish itself, though 

 a gradual and general uplift supervenes. Aristocracy 

 frequently ends in, but just as frequently with palaces. 

 " Leurs privileges memes les etouffent," as Bougie says. And, 

 indeed, Ruskin has it: " Out of the peat cottage come faith, 

 courage, self-sacrifice, purity and piety, and whatever else is 

 fruitful in the work of Heaven ; out of the ivory palace come 

 treachery, cruelty, cowardice, idolatry, bestiality whatever 

 else is fruitful in the work of Hell." 



Really, therefore notwithstanding even anatomic and 

 genetic differences men are not so very unequal, and that is 

 also why it is said that the Lord, who sees the heart of men, is 

 not a respecter of persons. It is good reason also for all 

 democracies to take heart of grace and not to heed over much 

 the prophets of permanent and fundamental inequality. 



Huxley Darwin's "bull dog" who unfortunately went 

 too far in his otherwise beneficial anti-obscurantist campaign, 

 conceived a prejudice against Rousseau, and spared no efforts 

 to disparage the latter's joyous and optimistic message to the 

 world. Yet Huxley boasted that he was neither an optimist 

 nor a pessimist; rather superior in this respect, as it would 

 seem, to most successful men who are usually inclined towards 

 a generous optimism. But when he, as the chosen representa- 

 tive of Science, declared that our human morality has not the 

 sanction of Nature (Nature being decidedly non-moral), that 

 the ethical process is in opposition to the cosmic (i.e., the 

 \ unconscious, unintelligent process of the sub-human world), 

 j that there is no trace in Nature of moral purpose (this being 

 / an article of exclusive human manufacture), that no ethics are 

 required merely to survive, that the "fittest" to survive in the 

 Struggle for Existence may be and often are the ethically ( !) 

 worst, when he scornfully rejected the idea that the principle 

 of evolution could be adopted as an ethical principle, we begin 



