Presumably when Rousseau spoke of “Freedom” he meant a certain lack of compulsion regarding actions which are peculiar to civilisation, a certain absence of constraint in regard to conventions that do not harass the savage. The savage does not require to wear clean linen, he does not require to wear a hat, he may if he choose eat with his fingers, or come to breakfast unshaven; he may have three or four wives, he may eat human flesh, he may live in the open and shoot down his prey without considering whether it belongs to the squire or to the lord of the manor. Rousseau cannot have meant anything but this by “Freedom.” If Rousseau had been told that while it was true that the savage does not require to perform much that the civilised man has to perform, the civilised man, on the other hand, is “free” from many a duty that is incumbent on the savage, he would have perceived that to drop the constraints of civilisation for those of barbarism merely amounted to exchanging one form of bondage for another. For instance, the savage of certain climes has to tattoo his flesh, sometimes with great pain; he has to observe certain rigid taboos, he has to hunt for his food, he has to fight every day of his life against wild animals and the hostile tribe of his neighbourhood into the bargain; he has to work hard during boyhood and early [p23] manhood to acquire efficiency in the arts of the chase and of war; he is obliged to recognise a chieftain, etc. In fact, it could be shown that Man in a “state of nature” is perhaps even more constrained by conventions and laws than civilised man. Only by deliberately falsifying the evidence--that is to say, by giving a thoroughly distorted notion of Nature, would it be possible to contend that man “in a state of nature” is more “free” than civilised man. Rousseau, as we have seen, however, did not hesitate to falsify the evidence. Hence he was able to say: “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.” But if we turn to the modern idea of Freedom, we shall find that it is even more difficult to understand than Rousseau’s. For at least Rousseau’s “Freedom” can be traced to a romantic distortion of the true attributes of “Nature”; the modern idea of “Freedom” can be traced to nothing. In its two forms, the alleged desideratum of modernity. Freedom and Liberty, means literally nothing. If we put the questions--freedom and liberty from what? and freedom and liberty for what?--it will be seen immediately that there is no definite idea whatsoever behind the words. Freedom or liberty as an aim, presupposes emancipation from a yoke. What is the yoke from which modern man wishes to be free? Is it work? Is it timed work? Freedom or liberty as an aim presupposes emancipation from a yoke for a definite purpose. What is this purpose? Is it a higher or a lower? Is it more entertainment [p24] or more usefulness? Is it desirable or undesirable?