i have just seen a newspaper paragraph which, whether it refers to a fact or merely a suggestion, seems to me to go down pretty well into that depth of mindlessness which calls itself the modern mind. it is said that influence is being brought to bear on the american government to induce them to break a bottle of water instead of a bottle of champagne when they christen a battleship. now it is not easy to deal adequately with the rich stupidity of that. it is about five follies thick, stupidity obscuring stupidity until one reader can hardly see more than one of the jokes at a time. there is something almost fascinating in the idea of trying to disentangle them.

first stupidity. note the notion that there is something so intrinsically and supernaturally evil about an intoxicant that the pure temperance man will not touch it even when it cannot intoxicate anybody. it is as if a man were to insist on having a teetotal boot-polish or a teetotal printing-ink. a cup of tea, or even of hot milk, becomes diabolic if you have boiled the kettle with methylated spirit. eau-de-cologne is a blackguard indulgence, though you use it only to scent your handkerchief. a liquor containing alcohol (such as ginger-beer) is simply and superstitiously an accursed thing, which is not only not to be touched with the lips, but not to be touched with the hands. after this case, the more intemperate “temperance” people cannot pretend any longer that their proposal is merely a social reform; it is obviously and literally a mystical taboo. i do not see what right such people have to mock at the savage’s fear of a fetish, still less at the peasant’s respect for the relic of a saint. there might surely be such a thing as holy water, if it be so certain that there is such a thing as unholy water.

second stupidity. the extraordinary confusion by which it becomes not only wicked to possess wine (though you never drink it), but becomes wicked even to destroy it. this goes, i think, much further than this queer materialist madness has yet gone. if a champagne bottle is smashed to smithereens over the prow of a ship, i should have thought the most logical teetotaller would merely have been glad that there was one champagne bottle less in the world. as he would probably not be a person with any special sympathy with the old ceremonials of revelry, that is the only possible way in which i can imagine the thing affecting him. we in england used to think we could trace a slight streak of fanaticism in good mrs. carrie nation, who used to go about breaking other people’s wine and spirit bottles with her little hatchet. but now it would appear that mrs. carrie nation was a wobbler, one weakly compromising with the fiend of fermented drink, perhaps nobbled by the liquor trade—or, worse still, verging on the loathly state of a moderate drinker. she ought to have been summoned before a tribunal of these new teetotallers and condemned for ever having gone near enough to a bottle to touch it, even with a hatchet; condemned for having so much as hung about the hellish tavern, where the very fumes of its fiery poisons might have mounted to her head. the principle is an interesting one, and might be extended to many cases. thus, when the common hangman burned a book of treason or heresy, he may be supposed to have been infected by the intellectual errors it contained. thus when a censor blacks out a paragraph in a newspaper, he may be held to have sinned even in looking to see where the paragraph was. this, apparently, is the new barbaric fancy: that certain vegetable drinks are so demonic that we not only are wrong when we drink them, but are wrong when we do our best to render them undrinkable.

third stupidity. the curious deadness of the mind in such men is illustrated at the next stage; that of clinging convulsively to a mere form; and not only not knowing, but not so much as wondering—first, whether the idea is worth preserving; and, secondly, whether they are preserving it. the mark of this dead and broken traditionalism is always two-fold. it can be seen in these two facts: that men alter a thing as if it had no sense in it; and yet they never have the sense to abolish what is for them a senseless thing. i can see much dignity in absolute austerity and the refusal of symbol; i can see some dignity even in dingy utilitarianism and the refusal of art. i could respect the perfect plainness of an early quaker like penn when he would not take his hat off in the palace, because it was an idle form. i do not despise him because he came afterwards (i believe) to see that keeping your hat on is just as much of a form as taking it off; and took off his hat like other people. but if penn had strictly confined himself, say, to taking off his hatband with laborious care, every time he entered the royal presence, i should say that he had lost both his quakerism and his sociability. he would have lost the independence that refuses recognition to the world, and he would not have gained the disputable substitute of good manners. similarly, i could respect (though i could not envy) the flinty old manchester manufacturers who regarded all expenditure on arms, especially on drums, flags, or trumpets, as so much babyish waste of money. but i should not even have respected them if they had proposed that the british army should fly the white flag in every battle because it was cheaper than a coloured one. why have a flag at all, if it comes to that? or, again, i can understand the unconverted scrooge with his bowl of gruel; and i like the converted scrooge with his bowl of punch. but if scrooge had insisted every christmas on having a punch-bowl with no punch in it, i should not understand at all.

fourth stupidity. besides this general deadness, there is a strange special deadness to the human sentiment behind that special sort of ceremony. don’t express the sentiment if you think it a silly sentiment; but don’t so express it as to prove that you haven’t got it. that sentiment is the ancient sentiment of sacrifice. the thing sacrificed may be anything: wine, as on the battleship; gold, as when the doge threw his ring into the sea; an ox or a sheep, as among the ancient pagans; and very occasionally, when tribes savage or civilized are seized with satanist panic, a man. but it must be something valuable, or the particular thrill, wholesome or unwholesome, is not obtained. it was generally the best sheep or the best ox; and in the rare cases of human sacrifice, generally somebody like the king’s daughter. like all human appetites, it is both good and evil; it has many roots, a gesture of generosity, an appeal to the unknown, a guarantee against arrogance, a dim idea of not taking all one’s advantage from fortune: but they all depend on the value, and these men evidently understand none of them, when they fill the bottle with water.