both, finally, made it
clear that Pragmatism, unless allied with Feminism, was destined to be
relegated to the limbo of the obsolete. (Cheers.)

Professor Splurgeson then went on to say that nowhere was this happy
element of intellectual compromise more needful than in discussing the
problem of personality. That problem comprised three questions: What are
we? What do we think of ourselves? and What do others think of us? In
regard to the first question, the philosophic pitch had been queered by the
conflicting combinations of all thinkers from Corcorygus the Borborygmatic
down to WILLIAM JAMES. (Applause.) Man had been defined as a gelastic
apteryx, but in view of the attitude of women towards the Plumage Bill the
definition could hardly be allowed to fit the requirements of the spindle
side of creation. The danger of endeavouring to find some unifying concept
in a multiplicity of conflicting details was only equalled by that of
recognizing the essential diversity which underlay a superficial
homogeneity. (Loud cheers.)

At this point the Professor paused for a few minutes while kuemmel and
caviare sandwiches were handed round.

Resuming, Professor Splurgeson discussed with great eloquence the secular
duel between the Will and the Understanding. It was _ex hypothesi_
impossible for the super-man, _a fortiori_ the super-woman, to yield to the
dictates of the understanding. The question arose whether we might not
profitably invert metaphysic and, instead of trying to locate personality
in totality, begin with personality and work outwards. (Applause.)
Otherwise the process of endeavouring to effect a synthesis of centripetal
and centrifugal tendencies would invariably result in an indefinite
deadlock.

Professor Splurgeson then proceeded to give a brief outline of what we
usually think of ourselves. It was true that the expression of the face
held a great place in the idea we had of other personalities, but how was
it that in the idea of ourselves it played so small a part? The reason was
that we did not know our own countenances. (Sensation.) If we were to meet
ourselves in the street we should infallibly pass without a recognition.
More than that, we did not wish to know them. (Murmurs.) Whenever we looked
at ourselves in the glass we systematically ignored the most individual
features--(cries of dissent)--and that was why we never, or very seldom,
agreed that a photograph resembled or rendered justice to us. The
ex