Latin prose to a similar rhythmical element in English prose. One is that Greek and Roman Metres are strictly quantitative, and that, consequently, the prosody which has been discovered in Demosthenes, Cicero, and others is strictly quantitative also. However much we may be inclined to a quantitative theory of English Verse, we shall hesitate, I imagine, about applying it to the rhythms of prose. The other consideration is more decisive. The metrical effects in Greek and Latin prose were practically confined to oratory. Rhythm is for the ear, and all exhaustive criticism of prose must be aural. Yet there is a great difference between prose made primarily for the ear, like that of Demosthenes and Cicero (as of any orator in any language or age) and prose made as the great bulk of English prose has been-primarily for the eye. Oratorical effect is not the same as literary effect. Oratory is more patient of rhythm than literature proper; partly because it naturally uses any device that may attract attention; chiefly because one of its agents is gesture, which must be rhythmical if it is to be of much account. A small section of English literary prose (e.g., much of Carlyle and Ruskin) is hortatory, and has much of the genius of the true oration; while some, of course, consists of published speeches, sermons or lectures. In these, effects describable as rhythmical are frequent. But a glance at Professor Saintsbury's extracts shows that such prose is no measure of the frequency of prose rhythm, and that_Thackeray or Pater may yield as many 'feet' as Jeremy Taylor or Burke.

It is evident then, that English theorists must work on different lines from those of their classical predecessors; and I believe that the subjection of all prose to scansion, and the effort to present prose rhythm as an irregular quasi-metre are to a large extent fallacious. The fact that when prose rhythms become definitely metrical, the prose in which they

appear is, by general consent, ipso facto and pro tanto degraded, is surely proof that whatever the merit of prose rhythm may be, it is not the merit of metre.

Criticism's true task is to explain, if it can, the aural fascination of the best English prose; of writing so articulated, so balanced; now retarded, now accelerated; pausing, resuming; diverging, returning; swelling, dying-and all without a single lapse into the regularities of verse-that the ear must hear what the eye sees, and will hear it with ever recurrent delight. We shall not, I think, succeed in the task unless we assume the makers of prose to be free men, and the aural spell, as compared with that of verse, an individual secret. The clause-scheme within the sentence, and the sentence-scheme within the paragraph, are manifestations of an order, analogous, it may be, to metre, but widely different, more complex, more individual, more intellectual. Not by scansion, not by efforts to assimilate the order of prose to the prosody of verse, will any great advances be made. The more hopeful way is that of sentence-analysis, not, indeed, the analysis of the grammarian, but that of the student of Style, bent on understanding-if understanding be possible the transfiguration of mere truth into beauty, the passage of mere meaning into pageantry of movement and music of sound.

E

PURITY.

VERYONE who speaks about Purity does so in the presence of two dangers, the danger of saying too little, and the danger of saying

too much.

The danger of saying too little is that which chiefly prompts me to write this paper. I feeland I am sure that most of those who care deeply for their neighbours feel—that serious harm has come from a meaningless and cowardly reserve about this question, which has influenced, and still influences, many of those who have opportunities—and who has not ?-of guiding others.

But the other danger is equally real. I am convinced that there is a tendency in the best of us to let our thoughts play round this matter more than is really necessary, to think and to speak about it to no very practical purpose, chiefly because it is a forbidden or half-forbidden subject. And the tendency is strengthened by a greater frankness of speech on all subjects which is very noticeable in these days.

How shall I steer between the dangers? Only, I think, by taking no heed, for the moment, of much or little, and by aiming only at saying what is right, i.e., what is true and vital and practical. And I shall speak only of general principles, leaving it to others in discussion or otherwise to apply the principles-if they deserve application-to the here and now of Winchester or Hampshire or wherever our spheres may lie.

Now let me remind you of an incident in the past of the C.E.M.S., and not very long ago. Some who

are here must have been, as I was, at a great meeting in the Guildhall early in 1908, when our Bishop, with admirable candour and courage, spoke out about some sins against Purity, and threw himself on the help and sympathy of the C.E.M.S. I have felt ever since that here in Winchester we ought to give the Bishop something more than attentive ears and applauding hands; that we ought in some way to refer to the subject, to reflect on it, and consider what we can do to help.

So far as I am concerned, my object is that we Christians, we Churchmen, we members of the Church of England Men's Society, we honest, well-meaning, intelligent citizens, should make sure that we have clear definite principles on this very important matter-principles in which we are prepared to live and die-principles which we can pass on, like an elixir of life, to others.

I have called the matter ' very important,' but how dull and inadequate the words seem! Important, indeed; one might rather say 'wonderful,' ' awful!' Think of the appalling contrasts brought before us by the words Chastity and Impurity. On the one hand, that high and holy thing the home; father, mother, brothers, sisters; bridal innocence and wedded affection; love unto death; children, of such as whom is the Kingdom of Heaven! On the other hand, foul thoughts, foul words, broken health, weakened intellects, ruined reputations, lost souls!

In presence of such a mystery as this, dare we grope and blunder along as most of us do?

One thing, let us reflect for our comfort, is much in our favour. There is difficulty, sometimes, as to Temperance, e.g., whether Teetotalism is or is not necessary to its success. But there is no difficulty or doubt as to the obligation of Chastity-as perfect as, by self-control and God's help we can make it— on every man, rich and poor, slightly tempted or

greatly tempted, in every place and in every age. I do not mean that you will not come across men now and then who speak and—I fear-act as if it were otherwise. But I do not believe that any one quite honest with himself and his conscience, and speaking-so to say-under oath, would call in question the obligation of Chastity on every man entrusted with the sacred gift of life and its powers. Christian and Agnostic, philosopher, political economist, doctor of medicine, military and naval and police officer, they would all, you may be sure, be ranged on the side of the 'White Cross.'

No, thank God! we have not to argue for Chastity; what we have to do is to make sure that we know or realize what it is; and then try to make it prevail in a world full of impurity.

Our standard, then, is to be perfect Chastity; and we want to know-and to realise, which means something firmer and more vivid than a good deal of mere knowing what Chastity or Purity is and means. Secondly, we want to apply our standard, to work it in with our lives, and to judge by it our own lives, and those of others, in so far as we have any business with them.

Our starting-point is the simple natural fact that every healthy man is endowed with sexual instinct, made very powerful by nature in order to the perpetuating of the race. Next we find the obvious social fact that this instinct must be carefully restrained and regulated if men and women are to live as civilised human beings. Yet further, we find ourselves face to face with the wonderful institution of Marriage Holy Matrimony as we so often call it -under whose benison-which is God's-the perpetuation of the race is carried on. With our minds on these facts and that institution, we may restate our standard, and say that it is perfect Purity or Continence for all who are unmarried. The sexual instinct and the feelings which arise from it, and the