their own inward minds of something which is called "The Public"--and
which is not there.

I do not mean that a business man is wrong when he says that "the public
will demand" such and such an article, and on producing the article
finds it sells widely; he is obviously and demonstrably right in his use
of the word "public" in such a connexion. Nor is a man wrong or subject
to illusion when he says, "The public have taken to cinematograph
shows," or "The public were greatly moved when the Hull fishermen were
shot at by the Russian fleet in the North Sea." What I mean is "The
Public" as an excuse or scapegoat; the Public as a menace; the Public as
a butt. That Public simply does not exist.

For instance, the publisher will say, as though he were talking of some
monster, "The Public will not buy Jinks's work. It is first-class work,
so it is too good for the Public." He is quite right in his statement of
fact. Of the very small proportion of our people who read only a
fraction buy books, and of the fraction that buy books very few indeed
buy Jinks's. Jinks has a very pleasant up-and-down style. He loves to
use funny words dragged from the tomb, and he has delicate little
emotions. Yet hardly anybody will buy him--so the publisher is quite
right in one sense when he says, "The Public" won't buy Jinks. But where
he is quite wrong and suffering from a gross illusion is in the motive
and the manner of his saying it. He talks of "The Public" as something
gravely to blame and yet irredeemably stupid. He talks of it as
something quite external to himself, almost as something which he has
never personally come across. He talks of it as though it were a Mammoth
or an Eskimo. Now, if that publisher would wander for a moment into the
world of realities he would perceive his illusion. Modern men do not
like realities, and do not usually know the way to come in contact with