A FRIGHTENING TITLE FOR A LIGHTNING BOOK

Do not let the title frighten you. It is a very accurate name that introduces one of the most delightful little books that has been written in many a day. Although the subject is the politics of a university, the description might well apply to any politics. But it would be foolish to try to point out the ways in which the book could be applied to other fields; nothing could improve it. Never was a more subtle, more penetrating, more ironical cosmography written.

The microcosm of university life is made most amusing--and yet that is not the word; the inferiority and superiority complexes, the megalaphobias that are so much a part of the inhabitants of this little world that they cannot themselves see them, are painted with clear strokes. Is this a life of reason? Ah, no; it is a world where "nothing is ever done until everyone is convinced that it ought to be done, and has been convinced for so long that it is now time to do something else".

In this microcosm there are five parties; two that dwell in the valley of indecision, one that is guided by a principle, which is a rule of inaction, another that knows what it wants and gets it--all the money there is going--, and a last party that is afflicted by a conscience. And of course these parties hold caucuses, which you want to get into if you are outside and which you want to get out of if you are inside; wherein it is not so very different from some things we have heard about in our own Cambridge. At election times the four parties confuse one another and themselves so that they maintain a balance of power, and entirely exclude all of that party members afflicted by a conscience. And of course all young academic politicians would be out to acquire influence, the methods to be used being appropriately set forth.

The principles of government are most various; and must be studiously adhered to. And one must familiarize himself with the political motive, which is not quite what you would expect it to be. And in several ways the argument for inaction is cleverly developed. As an example of pure logic we have seen little that is better than this:

"The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent that you should not how do an admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, 'ex hypothesi', is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time".

If you would know how the conduct of business is ruled, and the principles of squaring, which, by the way, are quite different from what any mathematician would tell you, you must consult this guide. But, to quote the Advertisement with which it opens, it is a book for but a selected few:

"If you are young, do not read this book; it is not fit for you;

"If you are old, throw it away; you have nothing to learn from it;

"If you are unambitious, light the fire with it; you do not need its guidance.

"But, if you are neither less than twenty-five years old, nor more than thirty;

"And if you are ambitious withal, and your spirit bankers after academic politics;

"Read, and may your soul (if you have a soul) find mercy!"