LET me here express my sincere gratitude to the manyReviewers who have noticed, whether favourably or unfavourably, the previousVolume. Their unfavourable remarks were, most probably, well-deserved;the favourable ones less probably so. Both kinds have no doubt served tomake the book known, and have helped the reading Public to form their opinionsof it. Let me also here assure them that it is not from any want of respectfor their criticisms, that I have carefully forborne from reading anyof them. I am strongly of opinion that an author had far better notread any reviews of his books: the unfavourable ones are almost certainto make him cross, and the favourable ones conceited; and neitherof these results is desirable.

Criticisms have, however, reached me from private sources,to some of which I propose to offer a reply.

One such critic complains that Arthur's strictures, onsermons and on choristers, are too severe. Let me say, in reply, that Ido not hold myself responsible for any of the opinions expressedby the characters in my book. They are simply opinions which, it seemedto me, might probably be held by the persons into whose mouths I put them,and which were worth consideration.

Other critics have objected to certain innovations inspelling, such as `ca'n't', `wo'n't', `traveler'. In reply, I can onlyplead my firm conviction that the popular usage is wrong. As to`ca'n't', it will not be disputed that, in all other words endingin `n't', these letters are an abbreviation of `not'; and it is surelyabsurd to suppose that, in this solitary instance, `not' is representedby `'t'! In fact `can't' is the proper abbreviation for `can it',just as `is't' is for `is it'. Again, in `wo'n't', the first apostropheis needed, because the word `would' is here abridged into `wo':but I hold it proper to spell `don't' with only one apostrophe,because the word `do' is herecomplete. As to such words as `traveler',I hold the correct principle to be, todouble the consonant whenthe accent falls on that syllable; otherwise to leave it single.This rule is observed in most cases (e.g. we double the `r' in `preferred',but leave it single in `offered'), so that I am only extending, to othercases, an existing rule. I admit, however, that I do not spell `parallel',as the rule would have it; but here we are constrained, by the etymology,to insert the double `l'.

In the Preface to Vol. I. were two puzzles, on which myreaders might exercise their ingenuity. One was, to detect the 2 linesof `padding', which I had found it necessary to supply in the passage extendingfrom the foot of p. 397 to the middle of p. 399. They are the 37th andthe 38th lines of p. 398. The other puzzle was, to determine which (ifany) of the 8 stanzas of the Gardener's Song (see pp. 408,413,415,418,423,427,446,448)were adapted to the context, and which (if any) had the context adaptedto them. The last of them is the only one that was adapted to the context,the `Garden-Door that opened with a key' having been substituted for somecreature (a Cormorant, I think) `that nestled in a tree'. At pp. 413, 423,and 446, the context was adapted to the stanza. At p. 418, neither stanzanor context was altered: the connection between them was simply a pieceof good luck.

In the Preface to Vol. I., at pp. 379, 380, I gave anaccount of the making-up of the story of `Sylvie and Bruno'. A few moredetails may perhaps be acceptable to my Readers.

It was in 1873, as I now believe, that the ideafirst occurred to me that a little fairy-tale (written, in 1867, for `AuntJudy's Magazine', under the title `Bruno's Revenge') might serve as thenucleus of a longer story. This I surmise, from having found the originaldraft of the last paragraph of Vol. II., dated 1873. So that this paragraphhas been waiting 20 years for its chance of emerging into print--more thantwice the period so cautiously recommended by Horace for `repressing' one'sliterary efforts!

It was in February, 1885, that I entered into negotiations,with Mr. Harry Furniss, for illustrating the book. Most of the substanceof both Volumes was then in existence in manuscript: and my originalintention was to publish the whole story at once. In September,1885, I received from Mr. Furniss the first set of drawings--the four whichillustrate `Peter and Paul': in November, 1886, I received the second set--thethree which illustrate the Professor's song about the `little man' whohad `a little gun': and in January, 1887, I received the third set--thefour which illustrate the `Pig-Tale'.

So we went on, illustrating first one bit of the story,and then another, without any idea of sequence. And it was not till March,1889, that, having calculated the number of pages the story would occupy,I decided on dividing it into two portions, and publishing it halfat a time. This necessitated the writing of a sort of conclusionfor the first Volume: and most of my Readers, I fancy, regardedthis as the actual conclusion, when that Volume appeared in December,1889. At any rate, among all the letters I received about it, there wasonly one which expressedany suspicion that it was not afinalconclusion. This letter was from a child. She wrote `we were so glad, whenwe came to the end of the book, to find that there was no ending-up, forthat shows us that you are going to write a sequel.'

It may interest some of my Readers to know the theoryon which this story is constructed. It is an attempt to show what mightpossiblyhappen, supposing that Fairies really existed; and that they were sometimesvisible to us, and we to them; and that they were sometimes able to assumehuman form: and supposing, also, that human beings might sometimes becomeconscious of what goes on in the Fairy-world--by actual transference oftheir immaterial essence, such as we meet with in `Esoteric Buddhism'.

I have supposed a Human being to be capable of variouspsychical states, with varying degrees of consciousness, as follows:

(a) the ordinary state, with no consciousness ofthe presence of Fairies;

(b) the `eerie' state, in which, while consciousof actual surroundings, he is also conscious of the presence ofFairies;

(c) a form of trance, in which, while unconsciousof actual surroundings, and apparently asleep, he (i.e. his immaterialessence) migrates to other scenes, in the actual world, or in Fairyland,and is conscious of the presence of Fairies.

I have also supposed a Fairy to be capable of migratingfrom Fairyland into the actual world, and of assuming, at pleasure, a Humanform; and also to be capable of various psychical states, viz.

(a) the ordinary state, with no consciousness ofthe presence of Human beings;

(b) a sort of `eerie' state, in which he is conscious,if in the actual world, of the presence of actual Human beings; if in Fairyland,of the presence of the immaterial essences of Human beings.

I will here tabulate the passages, in both Volumes, whereabnormal states occur.
 
 

 

Vol. I.	Historian's Locality and	State.	Other Characters.
pp. 386-390	In train ...............	c	Chancellor (b) p.386.
395-405	do. ...............	c
408-413	do. ...............	c
415-421	At lodgings ...............	c
423-427	On beach ...............	c
428-452	At lodgings ...............	c	S. and B. (b) pp. 444-446.
			Professor (b) p. 448.
456-468	In wood ...............	b	Bruno (b) pp.459-468.
pp. 470-473	In wood, sleep-walking	c	S. and B. (b).
			S. and B. (b).
478-480	Among ruins ...............	c	do. (b).

 

In the Preface to Vol. I., at pp. 379 and 380, I gave anaccount of the origination of some of the ideas embodied in the book. Afew more such details may perhaps interest my Readers:

I. p. 461. The very peculiar use, here made of a deadmouse, comes from real life. I once found two very small boys, in a garden,playing a microscopic game of `Single-Wicket'. The bat was, I think, aboutthe size of a tablespoon; and the utmost distance attained by the ball,in its most daring flights, was some 4 or 5 yards. The exact length wasof course a matter of supreme importance; and it was always carefully measuredout (the batsman and the bowler amicably sharing the toil) with a deadmouse!

I. p. 482. The two quasi-mathematical Axioms, quoted byArthur at p.482 of Vol. I. (`Things that are greater than the same aregreater than one another', and `All angles are equal') were actually enunciated,in all seriousness, by undergraduates at a university situated not 100miles from Ely.

II. p. 549. Bruno's remark (`I can, if I like, &c.')was actually made by a little boy.

II. p. 550. So also was his remark (`I know what it doesn'tspell'). And his remark (`I just twiddled my eyes, &c.') I heard fromthe lips of a little girl, who had just solved a puzzle I had set her.

II. p. 567. Bruno's soliloquy (`For its father, &c.')was actually spoken by a little girl, looking out of the window of a railway-carriage.

II. p. 597. The remark, made by a guest at the dinner-party,when asking for a dish of fruit (`I've been wishing for them, &c.')I heard made by the great Poet-Laureate, whose loss the whole reading-worldhas so lately had to deplore.

II. p. 506. Bruno's speech, on the subject of the ageof `Mein Herr', embodies the reply of a little girl to the question `Isyour grandmother an old lady?' `I don't know if she's an old lady,' saidthis cautious young person; `she's eighty-three.'

II. p. 621. The speech about `Obstruction' is no merecreature of my imagination! It is copied verbatim from the columns of theStandard, and was spoken by Sir William Harcourt, who was, at the time,a member of the `Opposition', at the `National Liberal Club', on July the16th, 1890.

II. p. 669. The Professor's remark, about a dog's tail,that `it doesn't bite at that end', was actually made by a child, whenwarned of the danger he was incurring by pulling the dog's tail.

II. p. 685. The dialogue between Sylvie and Bruno, whichoccupies lines 29 to 34, is a verbatim report (merely substituting `cake'for `penny') of a dialogue overheard between two children.

One story in this Volume--`Bruno's Picnic'--I can vouchfor as suitable for telling to children, having tested it again and again;and, whether my audience has been a dozen little girls in a village-school,or some thirty or forty in a London drawing-room, or a hundred in a HighSchool, I have always found them earnestly attentive and keenly appreciativeof such fun as the story supplied.

May I take this opportunity of calling attention to whatI flatter myself was a successful piece of name-coining, at p. 400 of Vol.I. Does not the name `Sibimet' fairly embody the character of the Sub-Warden?The gentle Reader has no doubt observed what a singularly useless articlein a house a brazen trumpet is, if you simply leave it lying about, andnever blow it!

Readers of the first Volume, who have amused themselvesby trying to solve the two puzzles propounded at page 380 of the Preface,may perhaps like to exercise their ingenuity in discovering which (if any)of the following parallelisms were intentional, and which (if any) accidental.

`Little Birds'.  Events, and Persons.
Stanza  1. Banquet.
 2. Chancellor.
 3. Empress and Spinach (II. 668).
 4. Warden's Return.
 5. Professor's Lecture (II. 672).
 6. Other Professor's Song (I. 435).
 7. Petting of Uggug.
 8. Baron Doppelgeist.
 9. Jester and Bear (I. 429). Little Foxes.
 10. Bruno's Dinner-Bell; Little Foxes.
 
 

I will publish the answer to this puzzle in the Prefaceto a little book of `Original Games and Puzzles', now in course of preparation.

I have reserved, for the last, one or two rather moreserious topics.

I had intended, in this Preface, to discuss more fully,than I had done in the previous Volume, the `Morality of Sport', with specialreference to letters I have received from lovers of Sport, in which theypoint out the many great advantages which men get from it, and try to provethat the suffering, which it inflicts on animals, is too trivial to beregarded.

But, when I came to think the subject out, and to arrangethe whole of the arguments `pro' and `con', I found it much too large fortreatment here. Some day, I hope to publish an essay on this subject. Atpresent, I will content myself with stating the net result I have arrivedat.

It is, that God has given to Man an absolute right totake the lives of other animals, for any reasonable cause, such as thesupply of food: but that He has not given to Man the right to inflict pain,unless when necessary: that mere pleasure, or advantage, does not constitutesuch a necessity: and, consequently, that pain, inflicted for the purposesof Sport, is cruel, and therefore wrong. But I find it a far more complexquestion than I had supposed; and that the `case', on the side of the Sportsman,is a much stronger one than I had supposed. So, for the present, I sayno more about it.

Objections have been raised to the severe language I haveput into the mouth of `Arthur', at p. 489, on the subject of `Sermons',and at pp. 487, 488, on the subjects of Choral Services and `Choristers'.

I have already protested against the assumption that Iam ready to endorse the opinions of characters in my story. But, in thesetwo instances, I admit that I am much in sympathy with `Arthur'. In myopinion, far too many sermons are expected from our preachers; and, asa consequence, a great many are preached, which are not worth listeningto; and, as a consequence of that, we are very apt not to listen. The readerof this paragraph probably heard a sermon last Sunday morning? Well, lethim, if he can, name the text, and state how the preacher treated it!

Then, as to `Choristers', and all the other accessories--ofmusic, vestments, processions, &c.--which have come, along with them,into fashion--while freely admitting that the `Ritual' movement was sorelyneeded, and that it has effected a vast improvement in our Church-Services,which had become dead and dry to the last degree, I hold that, like manyother desirable movements, it has gone too far in the opposite direction,and has introduced many new dangers.

For the Congregation this new movement involves the dangerof learning to think that the Services are done for them; and that theirbodily presence is all they need contribute. And, for Clergy and Congregationalike, it involves the danger of regarding these elaborate Services asends in themselves, and of forgetting that they are simply means, and thevery hollowest of mockeries, unless they bear fruit in our lives.

For the Choristers it seems to involve the danger of self-conceit,as described at p. 488 (N.B. `stagy-entrances' is a misprint for `stage-entrances'),the danger of regarding those parts of the Service, where their help isnot required, as not worth attending to, the danger of coming to regardthe Service as a mere outward form--a series of postures to be assumed,and of words to be said or sung, while the thoughts are elsewhere--andthe danger of `familiarity' breeding `contempt' for sacred things.

Let me illustrate these last two forms of danger, frommy own experience. Not long ago, I attended a Cathedral-Service, and wasplaced immediately behind a row of men, members of the Choir; and I couldnot help noticing that they treated the Lessons as a part of the Serviceto which they needed not to give any attention, and as affording them aconvenient opportunity for arranging music-books, &c., &c. AlsoI have frequently seen a row of little choristers, after marching in processionto their places, kneel down, as if about to pray, and rise from their kneesafter a minute spent in looking about them, it being but too evident thatthe attitude was a mere mockery. Surely it is very dangerous, for thesechildren, to thus accustom them to pretend to pray? As an instance of irreverenttreatment of holy things, I will mention a custom, which no doubt manyof my readers have noticed in Churches where the Clergy and Choir enterin procession, viz. that, at the end of the private devotions, which arecarried on in the vestry, and which are of course inaudible to the Congregation,the final `Amen' is shouted, loud enough to be heard all through the Church.This serves as a signal, to the Congregation, to prepare to rise when theprocession appears: and it admits of no dispute that it is for this purposethat it is thus shouted. When we remember to Whom that `Amen' is reallyaddressed, and consider that it is here used for the same purpose as oneof the Church-bells, we must surely admit that it is a piece of gross irreverence?To me it is much as if I were to see a Bible used as a footstool.

As an instance of the dangers, for the Clergy themselves,introduced by this new movement, let me mention the fact that, accordingto my experience, Clergymen of this school are specially apt to retailcomic anecdotes, in which the most sacred names and words--sometimes actualtexts from the Bible-- are used as themes for jesting. Many such thingsare repeated as having been originally said by children, whose utter ignoranceof evil must no doubt acquit them, in the sight of God, of all blame; butit must be otherwise for those who consciously use such innocent utterancesas material for their unholy mirth.

Let me add, however, most earnestly, that I fully believethat this profanity is, in many cases, unconscious: the `environment' (asI have tried to explain at pp. 590,591) makes all the difference betweenman and man; and I rejoice to think that many of these profane stories--whichI find so painful to listen to, and should feel it a sin to repeat--giveto their ears no pain, and to their consciences no shock; and that theycan utter, not less sincerely than myself, the two prayers, `Hallowed beThy Name', and `from hardness of heart, and contempt of Thy Word and Commandment,Good Lord, deliver us!' To which I would desire to add, for their sakeand for my own, Keble's beautiful petition, `help us, this and every day,To live more nearly as we pray!' It is, in fact, for its consequences--forthe grave dangers, both to speaker and to hearer, which it involves--ratherthan for what it is in itself, that I mourn over this clerical habit ofprofanity in social talk. To the believing hearer it brings the dangerof loss of reverence for holy things, by the mere act of listening to,and enjoying, such jests; and also the temptation to retail them for theamusement of others. To the unbelieving hearer it brings a welcome confirmationof his theory that religion is a fable, in the spectacle of its accreditedchampions thus betraying their trust. And to the speaker himself it mustsurely bring the danger of loss of faith. For surely such jests, if utteredwith no consciousness of harm, must necessarily be also uttered with noconsciousness, at the moment, of the reality of God, as a living being,who hears all we say. And he, who allows himself the habit of thus utteringholy words, with no thought of their meaning, is but too likely to findthat, for him, God has become a myth, and heaven a poetic fancy--that,for him, the light of life is gone, and that he is at heart an atheist,lost in `a darkness that may be felt'.

There is, I fear, at the present time, an increasing tendencyto irreverent treatment of the name of God and of subjects connected withreligion. Some of our theatres are helping this downward movement by thegross caricatures of clergymen which they put upon the stage: some of ourclergy are themselves helping it, by showing that they can lay aside thespirit of reverence, along with their surplices, and can treat as jests,when outside their churches, names and things to which they pay an almostsuperstitious veneration when inside: the `Salvation Army' has, I fear,with the best intentions, done much to help it, by the coarse familiaritywith which they treat holy things: and surely every one, who desires tolive in the spirit of the prayer `Hallowed be Thy Name', ought to do whathe can, however little that may be, to check it. So I have gladly takenthis unique opportunity, however unfit the topic may seem for the Prefaceto a book of this kind, to express some thoughts which have weighed onmy mind for a long time. I did not expect, when I wrote the Preface toVol. I, that it would be read to any appreciable extent: but I rejoiceto believe, from evidence that has reached me that it has been read bymany, and to hope that this Preface will also be so: and I think that,among them, some will be found ready to sympathize with the views I haveput forwards, and ready to help, with their prayers and their example,the revival, in Society, of the waning spirit of reverence.

Christmas, 1893.