[21] _Alegrarse o sufrir con los destinos humanos que, tal vez, la obra de arte nos refiere o presenta, es cosa muy diferente del verdadero goce artistico. Más aún: esa ocupación con lo humano de la obra es, en principio, incompatible con la estricta fruición estética._ [22] _Masterpieces of Chikamatsu, the Japanese Shakespeare_, translated by Asataro Miyamori, p. 48. [23] _Modern Painting_, by Frank Jewett Mather, Jr., p. 375. [24] There are passages in Mr. Whitehead’s books in which the word “God” is used properly, even nobly, with its religious connotation; and indeed, as Professor A. E. Taylor has shown in the _Dublin Review_ for July 1927, part of the difficulty in grasping his argument is owing to this intellectual double-dealing. But in the end the conception of God as a physical law, or impersonal principle, quite wins out. _The Pride of Modernity_ G. R. ELLIOTT I In European literature from Homer down to Milton and Racine (not to speak of Oriental literature) pride, wrong pride, is represented as far and away the chief of human evils. Such is not the case with the comparatively brief stretch of literature that ensues. Of course there are sharp exceptions to the rule. But speaking by and large recent literature--if that of the past two hundred years may so be termed in view of the long eras behind it--has not held up pride as the towering villain of the human drama. That villain has become more and more shrunken and shadowy. The _hubris_ of the Greeks, the proud presumption against the high gods that constituted for ancient writers the crown of human errors, seems now an old, unhappy, far-off thing, quite hopeless for literary purposes in the opening twentieth century. Even more hopeless seems the lineal successor to _hubris_, the Pride that led the seven deadly sins in mediæval pageantry, and doomed the heroes of humane tragedy in the Renaissance.