is the terrible allegory of the “Sleeping Beauty,” which tells how the human creature was blessed with all birthday gifts, yet cursed with death; and how death also may perhaps be softened to a sleep.  But I am not concerned with any of the separate statutes of elfland, but with the whole spirit of its law, which I learnt before I could speak, and shall retain when I cannot write.  I am concerned with a certain way of looking at life, which was created in me by the fairy tales, but has since been meekly ratified by the mere facts.

It might be stated this way.  There are certain sequences or developments (cases of one thing following another), which are, in the true sense of the word, reasonable.  They are, in the true sense of the word, necessary.  Such are mathematical and merely logical sequences.  We in fairyland (who are the most reasonable of all creatures) admit that reason and that necessity.  For instance, if the Ugly Sisters are older than Cinderella, it is (in an iron and awful sense) necessary that Cinderella is younger than the Ugly Sisters.  There is no getting out of it.  Haeckel may talk as much fatalism about that fact as he pleases:  it really must be.  If Jack is the son of a miller, a miller is the father of Jack.  Cold reason decrees it from her awful throne:  and we in fairyland submit.  If the three brothers all ride horses, there are six animals and eighteen legs involved:  that is true rationalism, and fairyland is full of it.  But as I put my head over the hedge of the elves and began to take notice of the natural world, I observed an extraordinary thing.  I observed that learned men in spectacles were talking of the actual things that happened—­ dawn and death and so on—­as if they were rational and inevitable.  They talked as if the fact that trees bear fruit were just as necessary as the fact that two and one trees make three.  But it is not.  There is an enormous difference by the test of fairyland; which is the test of the imagination.  You cannot imagine two and one not making three.  But you can easily imagine trees not growing fruit; you can imagine them growing golden candlesticks or tigers hanging on by the tail.  These men in spectacles spoke much of a man named Newton, who was hit by an apple, and who discovered a law.  But they could not be got to see the distinction between a true law, a law of reason, and the mere fact of apples falling.  If the apple hit Newton’s nose, Newton’s nose hit the apple.  That is a true necessity:  because we cannot conceive the one occurring without the other.  But we can quite well conceive the apple not falling on his nose; we can fancy it flying ardently through the air to hit some other nose, of which it had a more definite dislike.  We have always in our fairy tales kept this sharp distinction between the science of mental relations, in which there really are laws, and the science of physical facts, in which there are no laws, but only weird repetitions.  We believe in bodily miracles, but not in mental impossibilities.  We believe that a Bean-stalk climbed up to Heaven; but that does not at all confuse our convictions on the philosophical question of how many beans make five.