the other day i went to see the irish plays, recently acted by real irishmen—peasants and poor folk—under the inspiration of lady gregory and mr. w. b. yeats. over and above the excellence of the acting and the abstract merit of the plays (both of which were considerable), there emerged the strange and ironic interest which has been the source of so much fun and sin and sorrow—the interest of the irishman in england. since we have sinned by creating the stage irishman, it is fitting enough that we should all be rebuked by irishmen on the stage. we have all seen some obvious englishman performing a paddy. it was, perhaps, a just punishment to see an obvious paddy performing the comic and contemptible part of an english gentleman. i have now seen both, and i can lay my hand on my heart (though my knowledge of physiology is shaky about its position) and declare that the irish english gentleman was an even more abject and crawling figure than the english irish servant. the comic irishman in the english plays was at least given credit for a kind of chaotic courage. the comic englishman in the irish plays was represented not only as a fool, but as a nervous fool; a fussy and spasmodic prig, who could not be loved either for strength or weakness. but all this only illustrates the fundamental fact that both the national views are wrong; both the versions are perversions. the rollicking irishman and the priggish englishman are alike the mere myths generated by a misunderstanding. it would be rather nearer the truth if we spoke of the rollicking englishman and the priggish irishman. but even that would be wrong too.

unless people are near in soul they had better not be near in neighbourhood. the bible tells us to love our neighbours, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people. and there is a real human reason for this. you think of a remote man merely as a man; that is, you think of him in the right way. suppose i say to you suddenly—“oblige me by brooding on the soul of the man who lives at 351 high street, islington.” perhaps (now i come to think of it) you are the man who lives at 351 high street, islington. in that case substitute some other unknown address and pursue the intellectual sport. now you will probably be broadly right about the man in islington whom you have never seen or heard of, because you will begin at the right end—the human end. the man in islington is at least a man. the soul of the man in islington is certainly a soul. he also has been bewildered and broadened by youth; he also has been tortured and intoxicated by love; he also is sublimely doubtful about death. you can think about the soul of that nameless man who is a mere number in islington high street. but you do not think about the soul of your next-door neighbour. he is not a man; he is an environment. he is the barking of a dog; he is the noise of a pianola; he is a dispute about a party wall; he is drains that are worse than yours, or roses that are better than yours. now, all these are the wrong ends of a man; and a man, like many other things in this world, such as a cat-o’-nine-tails, has a large number of wrong ends, and only one right one. these adjuncts are all tails, so to speak. a dog is a sort of curly tail to a man; a substitute for that which man so tragically lost at an early stage of evolution. and though i would rather myself go about trailing a dog behind me than tugging a pianola or towing a rose-garden, yet this is a matter of taste, and they are all alike appendages or things dependent upon man. but besides his twenty tails, every man really has a head, a centre of identity, a soul. and the head of a man is even harder to find than the head of a skye terrier, for man has nine hundred and ninety-nine wrong ends instead of one. it is no question of getting hold of the sow by the right ear; it is a question of getting hold of the hedgehog by the right quill, of the bird by the right feather, of the forest by the right leaf. if we have never known the forest we shall know at least that it is a forest, a thing grown grandly out of the earth; we shall realize the roots toiling in the terrestrial darkness, the trunks reared in the sylvan twilight.

but to find the forest is to find the fringe of the forest. to approach it from without is to see its mere accidental outline ragged against the sky. it is to come close enough to be superficial. the remote man, therefore, may stand for manhood; for the glory of birth or the dignity of death. but it is difficult to get mr. brown next door (with whom you have quarrelled about the creepers) to stand for these things in any satisfactorily symbolic attitude. you do not feel the glory of his birth; you are more likely to hint heatedly at its ingloriousness. you do not, on purple and silver evenings, dwell on the dignity and quietude of his death; you think of it, if at all, rather as sudden. and the same is true of historical separation and proximity. i look forward to the same death as a chinaman; barring one or two chinese tortures, perhaps. i look back to the same babyhood as an ancient ph?nician; unless, indeed, it were one of that special confirmation class of sunday-school babies who were passed through the fire to moloch. but these distant or antique terrors seem merely tied on to the life: they are not part of its texture. babylonian mothers (however they yielded to etiquette) probably loved their children; and chinamen unquestionably reverenced their dead. it is far different when two peoples are close enough to each other to mistake all the acts and gestures of everyday life. it is far different when the baptist baker in islington thinks of irish infancy, passed amid popish priests and impossible fairies. it is far different when the tramp from tipperary thinks of irish death, coming often in dying hamlets, in distant colonies, in english prisons or on english gibbets. there childhood and death have lost all their reconciling qualities; the very details of them do not unite, but divide. hence england and ireland see the facts of each other without guessing the meaning of the facts. for instance, we may see the fact that an irish housewife is careless. but we fancy falsely that this is because she is scatter-brained; whereas it is, on the contrary, because she is concentrated—on religion, or conspiracy, or tea. you may call her inefficient, but you certainly must not call her weak. in the same way, the irish see the fact that the englishman is unsociable; they do not see the reason, which is that he is romantic.

this seems to me the real value of such striking national sketches as those by lady gregory and mr. synge, which i saw last week. here is a case where mere accidental realism, the thing written on the spot, the “slice of life,” may, for once in a way, do some good. all the signals, all the flags, all the declaratory externals of ireland we are almost certain to mistake. if the irishman speaks to us, we are sure to misunderstand him. but if we hear the irishman talking to himself, it may begin to dawn on us that he is a man.