Evening star., 1934-04-01
Continued From First Page.)

Of threescore years and ten. The
play contains some excellent dialogue.
as do all the other plays; but it is
very unequal, and, what Is worse, ulti-
mately unequal to its task. For, with
numberless passages of wit, and sore
passages of eloquence, Bernard Shaw
fails to do either of the two things he
is supposed to do. He fails to explain
why this unaccountably and ever
lastingly unfolding universe. this
nothing changing into everything for
no reason in particular-he fails to
show why this changing world should
be. or should be supposed to be, al
ways changing for the better. And
he most definitely fails to make us
feel that it is changing for the better.
As prospect Of improvement for the
normally complete human being, there
Is not much to choose between the
paradise of Shaw and the inferno of
Swift. There is nothing at all to
choose between the paradise of Shaw
and the inferno Of Aldous Huxley.
But there Is a deeper difficulty than
any difference of taste about the
chilly charms Of an earthly paradise
apparently situated at the North Pole.
1t is involved in this whole idea Of
endless evolutionary change, and 1t
can perhaps best be considered under
the particular myth or symbol of the
superman. An intimatedisciple of
Shaw said to me at the time of the
earlier play: "Nietzsche is at least
right in one sentence, Man is a thing
that has to be surpassed
Need for Standard.
I replied: ''In one sense the remark
Is most Christian and orthodox, but
unless you have a permanent stand
ard of good, how do you know when
he has been Surpassed?" The disciple
apparently had never thought of this.
To put 1t shortly, suppose six super
men appear at once and stand in a
row, all quite different and departing
from the human type in quite con-
trary directions. Suppose one is a
giant, braver but more brutal than
men, another Hindu saint, milder
but more ascetic than men: another
a great poet of pleasure. more Joyous
but more selfish than men; and SO on
through any number of quite con-
trary examples Of superior beings be-
yond the easy imitation of man. How
does the evolutionist know which Of
these superior things is superior to
the other superior beings? How can
ne possibly know, unless he already
has fixed and unalterable ideal of a
f1I ~
the whole metaphysic of mutabllity
falls to pieces. There is something
from the beginning which survives all
changes to the end; and it is not
enough that there is always a beyond,
for beyond it there is no beyond.
Finally. there is fundamental con-
nection between these stark imagina-
tions of strange births and radiant
monsters taking the place of men
and those first fads which remain as
mere provincial prejudices: even fads
as farcical as that of teetotalism. They
are connected by cosmic conception,
perhaps so large as to be almost un-
conscious. which separates men like
Mr.. Shaw from the older Christian
tradition; against which they think
they have rebelled, but Of which they
have never really thought. and in
deed. never really heard. Perhaps the
shortest way of stating it is this. The
older Christian theology stands out
against any such newer theory and,
against most other religions. in
this definite and defiant feature-that
it is the one and only philosophy that
has refused to despair Of man.
Thing 10 Be Surpassed"
Now Mr.. Shaw's evolutionism. and
nearly everybody else's. is absolutely
rooted in a despair about man. That
is what is picturesquely sy"nhclized
by q rather vague and evasive en-.
thusiasm about supermen. What is
really meant by the consolation OF the
beyond and the expectation CT Sill
perior organism? it is simply that
the actual animal called man is to
be treated almost as an extinct ami
NAL. He is a fossil walking the
streets; he is himself q sort of sppen-
dix of the cosmos. a superfiLous Or
gan. He is one Of those remarka ole
things in evolution which only sur
vive to prove that they have no sur
vival valuee. Man is a thing that
has to be surpassed"
Now it follows from this view Of
the cosmic disease, as a sort os astral
appendicitis, that the process of I'M
provement must be that particular
sort of simplification 70 which We give
the name of amputation. Things that
have always been a part Of the hu-
man being may be, for all anybody
knows. obstacles to the formation of
the new and nameless and sim plified
being. Certainly a man
is not a complete man without a nose.
but for anything anybody knows
about supermen they may be better
without noses. Noses may be nests
for germs. or the noise of the blow
ing of noses may disturb the delicate
nervous organism of that strong man
Of the future, who is to be the master
of us all. 1t will be remembered that
Aunt Jobiska, in the rhymes of the
learned Mr.. Lear, took this view and
reasoned in this fashion. saying that
every one knows that pobble is
better without his toes" Aunt Jo-
biska is a model evolutionist of this