permissible to lie to save another person's fac -as it was pardonable, surely, in Desdemon to declare that Othello had not murdered he In regard to the lie of exaggeration, a wor should perhaps parenthetically be said. We a know the child who has seen two elephants the garden eating the roses. We also know th delightful grown-up who "embroiders" his na: ratives. He will never tell the same adventur twice with the same details. The fact remain that he may each time leave you with precisel the same impression of the adventure in in entirety. It is quite possible that you trust hi exceedingly. Of course it is also possible tha his ben trovato is never vero. You will hav to determine after long experience of hi whether he is fundamentally false, or merel has a sense of style. Personally, I know exag gerators of both kinds: people whose lies an only picturesque adjectives, and people whos picturesque adjectives are only lies. There a subtle distinction between the two. At th risk of being at loggerheads with the rhetor cians, one must say that truth goes deeper tha ways the people who cling to e law. Some of the men and not say in so many words the t, will deliberately give a false are not the servants of truth; rasites of truth. The ladies I may be technically "out"; but out" only to the undesired visimuch as if they had stopped in g-rooms. (Remember, please, beaking of the people who reome caller rather than permit -they are in a very different not instinctively go to these curate account of a serious sitwhose conscience is satisfied of loyalty to fact knows very spirit of truth. at literal accuracy: I think it guard for all of us. The person ndulged in a literal falsehood to have indulged in a real speaking, words follow facts Oseness. Not always, however. [174] for doubt, the largely take the selves. I am no formula "I will them for anythin ecy-something God who maket pect that mere hold their tong they will often b damnable lie o sense, silence ca In this short the heart of th only lie forbid witness against respect for the think that it n awe-but I sh recipient of an son is wholly at To be, for one scrupulous, sug for one's frien for doubt, the people I have cited will n largely take the benefit of the doubt to the selves. I am not sure, for example, that t formula "I will not tell any one" stands them for anything but a fallible human prop ecy-something apt to be set at naught by t God who maketh diviners mad. I strongly su pect that mere loyalty will never make the hold their tongues. And I am quite sure th they will often be silent when silence is the mo damnable lie of all. For, in their technic sense, silence can never be a lie. In this short distance, we have come near the heart of the matter. Remember that t only lie forbidden in the Decalogue is fal witness against one's neighbor. I may feel re respect for the lady on the porch-when think that it may be hailing, I feel positi awe-but I should not like to make her t recipient of an intimate confidence. Such a p son is wholly at the mercy of the unscrupulou To be, for one's self, at the mercy of the u scrupulous, suggests, I admit, the saint; to b for one's friends, at the mercy of the unscr I have much sympathy with ople who cannot bring themall-room, to "play the game.' s to be, perhaps a liar is the nd yet- We may not go into apture over the nun in Les gave the mendacious answer ich of us wishes she had told Jean Valjean was actually in nately, such crucial instances ally we can benefit our friends the truth about them-if it would not be beloved. It is a has to be lied for regularly. se like that of Sœur Simplice, we, too, should lie, and be as king our peace with Heaven. alone, it is a question whether g such luxury as that of telling To lie to save one's self is the t; to lie to save another perne distrust the cosmos, but at er fault. For it seems to be codes that the unselfish motive [176] first time the ur Honor and John a strange battlefi the young soul which was friend Honour and sings Kipling in a us has not at som understood him? tuitous trappings turb. For the tru like Charity, it " in the mediaval the Church. Hon protects the wea others; it keeps immediately cond ity than with its less why the Pu The code of hon Christian; and t it are the peop Christians neede first time the unfamiliar shape of Honor Honor and John Calvin have fought on many a strange battlefield for the young soul, and the young soul must often have wondered which was friend and which was foe. Honour and wit, foredamned they sit, sings Kipling in an atavistic moment. Which o us has not at some time or other shudderingly understood him? And yet it is only the for tuitous trappings of Honor which can so dis turb. For the truest thing about Honor is that like Charity, it "seeks not itself"; and Hono in the medieval sense was the darling child of the Church. Honor does not break its word; i protects the weak against itself, and agains others; it keeps its engagements. It is mor immediately concerned with its duty to human ity than with its duty to God; which is doubt less why the Puritan mystic saw it as a foe The code of honor is the etiquette-book of the Christian; and the people who have attacked it are the people who have considered that Christians needed no etiquette. By our ances |