seem desirable for the sake of personal advantages, and with no
care for responsibility. This spirit seems to me an utterly vile
and detestable spirit. It tends to disguise its rank individualism
under a pretence of desiring to improve social conditions. I do not
mean for a moment to say that all social reformers are of this
type; the clean-handed social reformer, who desires no personal
advantage, and whose influence is a matter of anxious care, is one
of the noblest of men; but now that schemes of social reform are
fashionable, there are a number of blatant people who them for
purposes of personal advancement.

What I rather desire is to encourage a very different kind of
individualism, the individualism of the man who realises that the
hope of the race depends upon the quality of the life, upon the
number of people who live quiet, active, gentle, kindly, faithful
lives, enjoying their work and turning for recreation to the nobler
and simpler sources of pleasure--the love of nature, poetry,
literature, and art. Of course the difficulty is that we do not,
most of us, find our pleasures in these latter things, but in the
excitement and amusement of social life. I mournfully admit it, and
I quite see the uselessness of trying to bring pleasures within the
reach of people when they have no taste for them; but an increasing
number of people do care for such things, and there are still more
who would care for them, if only they could be introduced to them
at an impressionable age.

If it is said that this kind of simplicity is a very tame and
spiritless thing, I would answer that it has the advantage of being
within the reach of all. The reason why the pursuit of social
advancement and success is so hollow, is that the subordinate life