to her own tongue, to stand behind her own frontier, is but a sentiment will be surprised to find it leads him to this point.  Herein is the justification and the strength of the movement.  Men are deriding things around them, of the significance of which they have not the remotest idea.  Ireland is calling her children to a common banner, to the defence of her frontier, to the building up of a national life, harmonious and beautiful—­a conception of citizenship, from which a right is conceded, not because it can be compelled, but because it is just:  to the foundation of a state that will by its defence of the least powerful prove all powerful, that will be strong because true, beautiful because free, full of the music of her olden speech and caught by the magic of her encircling sea.

CHAPTER X

LITERATURE AND FREEDOM—­THE PROPAGANDIST PLAYWRIGHT

I

A nation’s literature is an index to its mind.  If the nation has its freedom to win, from its literature may we learn if it is passionately in earnest in the fight, or if it is half-hearted, or if it cares not at all.  Whatever state prevails, passionate men can pour their passion through literature to the nation’s soul and make it burn and move and fight.  For this reason it is of transcendent importance to the Cause.  Literature is the Shrine of Freedom, its fortress, its banner, its charter.  In its great temple patriots worship; from it soldiers go forth, wave its challenge, and fight, and conquering, write the charter of their country.  Its great power is contested by none; rather, all recognise it, and many and violent are the disputes as to its right use and purpose.  I propose to consider two of the disputants—­the propagandist playwright and the art-for-art’s-sake artist, since they raise issues that are our concern.  It is curious that two so violently opposed should be so nearly alike in error:  they are both afraid of life.  The propagandist is all for one side; the artist afraid of every side.  The one lacks imagination; the other lacks heart; they are both wide of the truth.  The service of the truth requires them to pursue one course; in their dispute they swerve from that course, one to right, one to left.  Because they leave the path on opposite sides, they do not see how much alike is their error; but that they do both leave the path is my point, and it is well we should consider it.  It would be difficult to deal with both sides at once; so I will consider the propagandist first.  What I have to charge against him is that his work is insincere, that he is afraid to do justice to the other side, that he makes ridicule of our exemplars, that he helps to keep the poseur in being; and to conclude, that only by a saving sense of humour can we find our way back to the truth.

II