licate sort of self-respect. That is to say, it would be
absurd to ask a thoroughly moral man to be also a man of honour. The
two, in fact, are eternal enemies; their endless struggle achieves that
happy mean of philosophies which we call civilization. The man of morals
keeps order in the world, regimenting its lawless hordes and organizing
its governments; the man of honour mellows and embellishes what is thus
achieved, giving to duty the aspect of a privilege and making human
intercourse a thing of fine faiths and understandings. We trust the
former to do what is righteous; we trust the latter to do what is
seemly. It is seldom that a man can do both. The man of honour
inevitably exalts the punctilio above the law of God; one may trust him,
if he has eaten one's salt, to respect one's daughter as he would his
own, but if he happens to be under no such special obligation it may be
hazardous to trust him with even one's charwoman or one's mother-in-law.
And the man of morals, confronted by a moral situation, is usually
wholly without honour. Put him on the stand to testify against a woman,
and he will tell all he knows about her, even including what he has
learned in the purple privacy of her boudoir. More, he will not tell it
reluctantly, shame-facedly, apologetically, but proudly and willingly,
in response to his high sense of moral duty. It is simply impossible for
such a man to lie like a gentleman. He lies, of course, like all of us,
and perhaps more often than most of us on the other side, but he does
it, not to protect sinners from the moral law, but to make their
punishment under the moral law more certain, swift, facile and
spectacular.

By this long route we get at our _apologia_ for Dr. Wilson, a man from
whom we both differ in politics, in theology, in ethics and in
epistemology, but one whose great gifts, particularly for moral
endeavour in the grand manner, excite our sincere admiration. Both his
foes and his friends, it seems to us, do him a good deal of injustice.
The former, carried away by that sense of unlikeness which lies at the
bottom of most of the prejudices of uncritical men, denounce him out of
hand because he is not as they are. A good many of these foes, of
course, are not actually men of honour themselves; some of them, in
fact, belong to sects and professions--for example, that of intellectual
Socialist and that of member of Congress--in which no authentic man of
honour could imaginably hav