It is in connection with these crimes of wealth and culture that we face the real problem of positive evil.  The whole of Mr. Blatchford’s controversy about sin was vitiated throughout by one’s consciousness that whenever he wrote the word “sinner” he thought of a man in rags.  But here, again, we can find truth merely by referring to vulgar literature—­its unfailing fountain.  Whoever read a detective story about poor people?  The poor have crimes; but the poor have no secrets.  And it is because the proud have secrets that they need to be detected before they are forgiven.

THE ELF OF JAPAN

There are things in this world of which I can say seriously that I love them but I do not like them.  The point is not merely verbal, but psychologically quite valid.  Cats are the first things that occur to me as examples of the principle.  Cats are so beautiful that a creature from another star might fall in love with them, and so incalculable that he might kill them.  Some of my friends take quite a high moral line about cats.  Some, like Mr. Titterton, I think, admire a cat for its moral independence and readiness to scratch anybody “if he does not behave himself.”  Others, like Mr. Belloe, regard the cat as cruel and secret, a fit friend for witches; one who will devour everything, except, indeed, poisoned food, “so utterly lacking is it in Christian simplicity and humility.”  For my part, I have neither of these feelings.  I admire cats as I admire catkins; those little fluffy things that hang on trees.  They are both pretty and both furry, and both declare the glory of God.  And this abstract exultation in all living things is truly to be called Love; for it is a higher feeling than mere affectional convenience; it is a vision.  It is heroic, and even saintly, in this:  that it asks for nothing in return.  I love all the eats in the street as St. Francis of Assisi loved all the birds in the wood or all the fishes in the sea; not so much, of course, but then I am not a saint.  But he did not wish to bridle a bird and ride on its back, as one bridles and rides on a horse.  He did not wish to put a collar round a fish’s neck, marked with the name “Francis,” and the address “Assisi”—­as one does with a dog.  He did not wish them to belong to him or himself to belong to them; in fact, it would be a very awkward experience to belong to a lot of fishes.  But a man does belong to his dog, in another but an equally real sense with that in which the dog belongs to him.  The two bonds of obedience and responsibility vary very much with the dogs and the men; but they are both bonds.  In other words, a man does not merely love a dog; as he might (in a mystical moment) love any sparrow that perched on his windowsill or any rabbit that ran across his path.  A man likes a dog; and that is a serious matter.