erament, and of the
disciplinary effects of its overt expression and exercise, as seen from
the moralist's point of view. As such it affords an indication of what
is the deliverance of the sober sense of mature men as to the degree
of availability of the predatory habit of mind for the purposes of the
collective life. It is felt that the presumption is against any activity
which involves habituation to the predatory attitude, and that the
burden of proof lies with those who speak for the rehabilitation of the
predaceous temper and for the practices which strengthen it. There is a
strong body of popular sentiment in favor of diversions and enterprises
of the kind in question; but there is at the same time present in
the community a pervading sense that this ground of sentiment wants
legitimation. The required legitimation is ordinarily sought by
showing that although sports are substantially of a predatory, socially
disintegrating effect; although their proximate effect runs in
the direction of reversion to propensities that are industrially
disserviceable; yet indirectly and remotely--by some not readily
comprehensible process of polar induction, or counter-irritation
perhaps--sports are conceived to foster a habit of mind that is
serviceable for the social or industrial purpose. That is to say,
although sports are essentially of the nature of invidious exploit, it
is presumed that by some remote and obscure effect they result in the
growth of a temperament conducive to non-invidious work. It is commonly
attempted to show all this empirically or it is rather assumed that this
is the empirical generalization which must be obvious to any one who
cares to see it. In conducting the proof of this thesis the treacherous
ground of inference from cause to effect is somewhat shrewdly avoided,
except so far as to show that the "manly virtues" spoken of above
are fostered by sports. But since it is these manly virtues that are
(economically) in need of legitimation, the chain of proof breaks
off where it should begin. In the most general economic terms, these
apologies are an effort to show that, in spite of the logic of the
thing, sports do in fact further what may broadly be called workmanship.
So long as he has not succeeded in persuading himself or others that
this is their effect the thoughtful apologist for sports will not rest
content, and commonly, it is to be admitted, he does not rest content.
His discontent with his own