and their common Christianity is a feeble bond of union in comparison with the forces of repulsion contained in a multitude of details. Two nominal, indifferent Christians, who take no interest in theology, would have a better chance of agreeing. Lastly, suppose them to be both members of the Church of England, one of the old school, with firm and settled beliefs on every point, and a horror of the most distant approaches to heresy; the other of the new school, vague, indeterminate, desiring to preserve his Christianity as a sentiment when it has vanished as a faith, thinking that the Bible is not true in the old sense, but only "contains" truth, that the divinity of Christ is "a past issue,"1 and that evolution is, on the whole, more probable than direct and intentional creation,-what possible agreement can exist between these two? If they both care about religious topics, and talk about them, will not their disagreement be in exact proportion to the liveliness of their interest in the subject? So in a realm with which I have some acquaintance that of the fine arts; discord is always probable between those who have a passionate delight in art. Innocent, well-intentioned friends think that because two men "like painting" they ought to be introduced, as they are sure to amuse each other. In reality their tastes may be more opposed than the taste of either of them is to perfect indifference. One has a severe taste for beautiful form and an active contempt for picturesque accidents and romantic associations, the other feels chilled by severe beauty, and delights in the picturesque and romantic. If each is convinced of the superiority of his own principles, he will deduce from

1 An expression used to me by a learned Doctor of Oxford.

them an endless series of judgments that can only irritate the other.

Seeing that nations are always hostile to each other, always watchfully jealous, and inclined to rejoice in every evil that happens to a neighbour, it would appear safe to predict that little intercourse could exist between persons of different nationality. When, however, we

observe the facts as they are in real life, we perceive that very strong and durable friendships often exist between men who are not of the same nation, and that the chief obstacle to the formation of these is not so much nationality as difference of language. There is, no doubt, a prejudice that one is not likely to get on well with a foreigner, and the prejudice has often the effect of keeping people of different nationality apart, but when once it is overcome it is often found that very powerful feelings of mutual respect and sympathy draw the strangers together. On the other hand, there is not the least assurance that the mere fact of being born in the same country will make two men regard each other with kindness. An Englishman repels another Englishman when he meets him on the Continent.1 The only just conclusion is that nationality affords no certain rule either in favour of intercourse or against it. A man may possibly be drawn towards a foreign nationality by his appreciation of its excellence in some art that he loves, but this is the case only when the excellence is of the peculiar kind that supplies the needs of his own intelligence. The French excel in painting; that is to say, that many Frenchmen have attained a certain kind

1 The causes of this curious repulsion are inquired into elsewhere in this volume.

of excellence in certain departments of the art of painting. Englishmen and Americans who value that particular kind of excellence are often strongly drawn towards Paris as an artistic centre or capital, and this opening of their minds to French influence in art may admit other French influences at the same time, so that the ultimate effect of a love of art may be a breaking down of the barrier of nationality. It seldom happens that Frenchmen are drawn towards England and America by their love of painting, but it frequently happens that they become in a measure Anglicised or Americanised either by the serious study of nautical science or by the love of yachting as an amusement, in which they look to England and America both for the most advanced theories and the newest examples.

The nearest approach ever made to a general rule may be the affirmation that likeness is the secret of companionship. This has a great look of probability, and may really be the reason for many associations; but after observing others we might come to the conclusion that an opposite law would be at least equally applicable. We might say that a companion, to be interesting, ought to bring new elements, and not be a repetition of our own too familiar personality. We have enough of ourselves in ourselves; we desire a companion who will relieve us from the bounds of our thoughts, as a neighbour opens his garden to us and delivers us from our own hedges. But if the unlikeness is so great that mutual understanding is impossible, then it is too great. We fancy that we should like to know this or that author, because we feel a certain sympathy with him though he is very different from us; but there are other writers

whom we do not desire to know, because we are aware of a difference too excessive for companionship.

The only approximation to a general law that I would venture to affirm, is, that the strongest reason why men are drawn together is not identity of class, not identity of race, not a common interest in any particular art or science, but because there is something in their idiosyncrasies that gives a charm to intercourse between the two. What it is I cannot tell, and I have never met with the wise man who was able to enlighten me.

It is not respect for character, seeing that we often respect people heartily without being able to enjoy their society. It is a mysterious suitableness or adaptability; and how mysterious it is may be in some degree realised when we reflect that we cannot account for our own preferences. I try to explain to myself, for my own intellectual satisfaction, how and why it is that I take pleasure in the society of one very dear friend. He is a most able, honourable, and high-minded man; but others are all that, and they give me no pleasure. My friend and I have really not very much in common; far less than I have with some perfectly indifferent people. I only know that we are always glad to be together, that each of us likes to listen to the other, and that we have talked for innumerable hours. Neither does my affection blind me to his faults. I see them as clearly as if I were his enemy, and doubt not that he sees mine. There is no illusion, and there has been no change in our sentiments for twenty years.

As a contrast to this instance, I think of others in which everything seems to have been prepared on purpose for facility of intercourse, in which there is similarity

of pursuits, of language, of education, of everything that is likely to permit men to talk easily together; and yet there is some obstacle that makes any real intercourse impossible. What the obstacle is, I am unable to explain even to myself. It need not be any unkind feeling, nor any feeling of disapprobation; there may be goodwill on both sides, and a mutual desire for a greater degree of intimacy; yet with all this the intimacy does not come, and such intercourse as we have is that of simple politeness. In these cases each party is apt to think that the other is reserved, when there is no wish to be reserved, but rather a desire to be as open as the unseen obstacle will allow. The existence of the obstacle does not prevent respect and esteem, or even a considerable degree of affection. It divides people who seem to be on the most friendly terms; it divides even the nearest relations-brother from brother, and the son from the father. Nobody knows exactly what it is, but we have a word for it, we call it incompatibility. The difficulty of going further, and explaining the real nature of incompatibility, is, that it takes as many shapes as there are varieties in the characters of mankind.

Sympathy and incompatibility—these are the two great powers that decide for us whether intercourse is to be possible or not; but the causes of them are dark mysteries that lie undiscovered, far down in the "abysmal deeps of personality."