But the question is not really settled. It is merely settled for the present, but not for the future. It is surely a sign of our weakness and barbarism that we cannot imagine to-morrow as better than to-day, and that, for all our vaunted temporal progress and hypocritical talk of duty, we are yet unable to think and to feel in terms of improvement and change; but let our habits, like the vilest vested interests, oppose a veto to the hope and wish for better things. To realise that _what is_ does not mean what _will be_, constitutes, methinks, the real spirituality of us poor human creatures, allowing our judgments and aspirations to pass beyond our short and hidebound life, to live on in the future, and help to make that _yonside of our mortality_, which some of us attempt to satisfy with theosophic reincarnation and planchette messages! But such spirituality, whose "it shall"--or "it shall not"--will become an ever larger part of all _it is_, depends upon the courage of recognising that much of what the past forces us to accept is not good enough for the future; recognising that, odious as this may seem to our self-conceit and sloth, many of the things we do and like and are, will not bear even our own uncritical scrutiny. Above all, that the lesser evil which we prefer to the greater is an evil for all that, and requires riddance. Much of the world's big mischief is due to the avoidance of a bigger one. For instance, all this naively insisted on masculine inability to obtain the poet's or naturalist's joys without shooting a bird or hooking a fish, this inability to love wild life, early hours and wholesome fatigue unless accompanied by a waste of life and of money; in short, all this incapacity _for being manly without being destructive_, is largely due among us Anglo-Saxons to the bringing up of boys as mere playground dunces, for fear (as we are told by parents and schoolmasters) that the future citizens of England should take to evil communications and worse manners if they did not play and talk cricket and football at every available moment. For what can you expect but that manly innocence which has been preserved at the expense of every higher taste should grow up into manly virtue unable to maintain itself save by hunting and fishing, shooting and horse-racing; expensive amusements requiring, in their turn, a further sacrifice of all capacities for innocent, noble and inexpensive interests, in the absorbing, sometimes stultifying, often debasing processes of making money? The same complacency towards waste and mischief for the sake of moral advantages may be studied in the case also of our womankind. The absorption in their _toilettes_ guards them from many dangers to family sanctity. And from how much cruel gossip is not society saved by the prevalent passion for bridge! So at least moralists, who are usually the most complacently demoralised of elderly cynics, are ready to assure us. XV.