Tremendous Trifles

The Wind and the Trees

I am sitting under tall trees, with a great wind boiling like surf

about the tops of them, so that their living load of leaves rocks

and roars in something that is at once exultation and agony.

I feel, in fact, as if I were actually sitting at the bottom

of the sea among mere anchors and ropes, while over my head

and over the green twilight of water sounded the everlasting rush

of waves and the toil and crash and shipwreck of tremendous ships.

The wind tugs at the trees as if it might pluck them root

and all out of the earth like tufts of grass. Or, to try yet

another desperate figure of speech for this unspeakable energy,

the trees are straining and tearing and lashing as if they

were a tribe of dragons each tied by the tail.

As I look at these top-heavy giants tortured by an invisible

and violent witchcraft, a phrase comes back into my mind.

I remember a little boy of my acquaintance who was once walking

in Battersea Park under just such torn skies and tossing trees.

He did not like the wind at all; it blew in his face too much;

it made him shut his eyes; and it blew off his hat, of which

he was very proud. He was, as far as I remember, about four.

After complaining repeatedly of the atmospheric unrest, he said

at last to his mother, "Well, why don't you take away the trees,

and then it wouldn't wind."

Nothing could be more intelligent or natural than this mistake.

Any one looking for the first time at the trees might fancy

that they were indeed vast and titanic fans, which by their mere

waving agitated the air around them for miles. Nothing, I say,

could be more human and excusable than the belief that it is

the trees which make the wind. Indeed, the belief is so human

and excusable that it is, as a matter of fact, the belief of about

ninety-nine out of a hundred of the philosophers, reformers,

sociologists, and politicians of the great age in which we live.

My small friend was, in fact, very like the principal modern thinkers;

only much nicer.

. . . . .

In the little apologue or parable which he has thus the honour

of inventing, the trees stand for all visible things

and the wind for the invisible. The wind is the spirit

which bloweth where it listeth; the trees are the material

things of the world which are blown where the spirit lists.

The wind is philosophy, religion, revolution; the trees are

cities and civilisations. We only know that there is a wind

because the trees on some distant hill suddenly go mad.

We only know that there is a real revolution because all

the chimney-pots go mad on the whole skyline of the city.

Just as the ragged outline of a tree grows suddenly more

ragged and rises into fantastic crests or tattered tails,

so the human city rises under the wind of the spirit into toppling

temples or sudden spires. No man has ever seen a revolution.

Mobs pouring through the palaces, blood pouring down the gutters,

the guillotine lifted higher than the throne, a prison

in ruins, a people in arms--these things are not revolution,

but the results of revolution.

You cannot see a wind; you can only see that there is a wind.

So, also, you cannot see a revolution; you can only see that

there is a revolution. And there never has been in the history

of the world a real revolution, brutally active and decisive,

which was not preceded by unrest and new dogma in the reign

of invisible things. All revolutions began by being abstract.

Most revolutions began by being quite pedantically abstract.

The wind is up above the world before a twig on the tree has moved.

So there must always be a battle in the sky before there

is a battle on the earth. Since it is lawful to pray

for the coming of the kingdom, it is lawful also to pray for

the coming of the revolution that shall restore the kingdom.

It is lawful to hope to hear the wind of Heaven in the trees.

It is lawful to pray "Thine anger come on earth as it

is in Heaven."

. . . . .

The great human dogma, then, is that the wind moves the trees.

The great human heresy is that the trees move the wind.

When people begin to say that the material circumstances have

alone created the moral circumstances, then they have prevented

all possibility of serious change. For if my circumstances

have made me wholly stupid, how can I be certain even that I

am right in altering those circumstances?

The man who represents all thought as an accident of environment

is simply smashing and discrediting all his own thoughts--

including that one. To treat the human mind as having an ultimate

authority is necessary to any kind of thinking, even free thinking.

And nothing will ever be reformed in this age or country unless

we realise that the moral fact comes first.

For example, most of us, I suppose, have seen in print and heard

in debating clubs an endless discussion that goes on between Socialists

and total abstainers. The latter say that drink leads to poverty;

the former say that poverty leads to drink. I can only wonder at their

either of them being content with such simple physical explanations.

Surely it is obvious that the thing which among the English proletariat

leads to poverty is the same as the thing which leads to drink;

the absence of strong civic dignity, the absence of an instinct

that resists degradation.

When you have discovered why enormous English estates were not long

ago cut up into small holdings like the land of France, you will have

discovered why the Englishman is more drunken than the Frenchman.

The Englishman, among his million delightful virtues, really has

this quality, which may strictly be called "hand to mouth," because under

its influence a man's hand automatically seeks his own mouth,

instead of seeking (as it sometimes should do) his oppressor's nose.

And a man who says that the English inequality in land is due only

to economic causes, or that the drunkenness of England is due only

to economic causes, is saying something so absurd that he cannot

really have thought what he was saying.

Yet things quite as preposterous as this are said and written under

the influence of that great spectacle of babyish helplessness, the

economic theory of history. We have people who represent that all

great historic motives were economic, and then have to howl at the

top of their voices in order to induce the modern democracy to act

on economic motives. The extreme Marxian politicians in England

exhibit themselves as a small, heroic minority, trying vainly to

induce the world to do what, according to their theory, the world

always does. The truth is, of course, that there will be a social

revolution the moment the thing has ceased to be purely economic.

You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy.

You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.

. . . . .

I get up from under the trees, for the wind and the slight

rain have ceased. The trees stand up like golden pillars

in a clear sunlight. The tossing of the trees and the blowing

of the wind have ceased simultaneously. So I suppose there

are still modern philosophers who will maintain that the trees

make the wind.