teachers, and 27,000 Greek pupils, or 10 per cent. of the total Greek population; with Greek hospitals and orphan asylums; and every kind of charitable institution; with not one Albanian church, not one Albanian school, not one Albanian charitable institution, cannot be termed Albanian except by Italy and Austria, who aimed at its division, and by those who have never visited Epirus, or never read the history of Epirus intelligently.

The province from which came the greatest benefactors of Greece, the greatest national heroes of the Great Greek War of Independence, Bozzaris, Karaiscakis, Diacos, Tjavellas and hundreds of others; the province which has given to Greece the richest Greek folk-lore, and practically all the teachers of Greece; the province from which came Mr. Zographos, former Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, the present Greek Admiral, the Minister of War, the Minister of Finance, the bankers and the merchants of Athens; the province from which came the late Anagnos, principal of the Perkins Institute for the Blind in Boston, and son-in-law of the late Dr. Howe, to which Anagnos left his fortunes for a new college for girls; the province which in 1914 revolted when the Powers, yielding to Austria and Italy. included part of it in Albania, that province of Greece should not be subjugated to the brave but savage Albanians.

And may we ask those who favor the inclusion of Northern Epirus in Albania to point to us one instance of a Christian from Northern Epirus who has rendered a signal service to Albania? If the Epirotes are Albanians, why do they leave their fortunes to Greece? If Banca of Corytza was Albanian, why did he not bequeath his millions to Albania, but did so to Greece?

It is unnecessary to dwell longer upon a plain fact. Epirus is Greek, in nationality, mentality, culture, and civilization. And America will not allow a cultured people to be subjugated to wild tribes.

Puritanism and Conformism

H. M. ELLIS

Professor of English in Trinity College

A few years ago I aroused a storm of immediate dissent in one of my classes at the University of Texas by making the casual remark that the state of Texas is today more puritanical than New England is. The lively discussion which followed brought out the fact that the members of the class held several different and conflicting conceptions of puritanism, agreeing only in the idea that it was something disagreeable and that they did not want to be called puritans. Being asked for evidence to justify my opinion, I cited three random illustrations, as they seemed to me, of Texas puritanism. They were: first, that state politics had been absorbed for years with agitation of the then primarily moral issue of prohibition, with the popular sentiment increasingly on the "pro" side; second, that in a recent discussion of the woman suffrage question in the state legislature the weightiest arguments both pro and con seemed to be based not upon reason, justice, or the experience of other commonwealths, but upon divers texts quoted from Scripture; and third, that playing cards in any hotel lobby, railway coach, or other public place in Texas is an offense punishable by the state law. The last two instances appeared to impress the class somewhat and led to at least a partial, if reluctant, acceptance of my point of view.

Since then, in a more extended observation of the use of the term "puritan," I have found a similarly wide diversity of usage among reputable writers on many subjects. Among the different senses of the word three seem rather clearly separable-the historical, the religious, and what might be called the "general vulgar." Besides these, however, and not satisfactorily included with any of the three, is obviously another less definite general sense, as when we say of an acquaintance, speaking literally, that he or she is a thorough puritan, or that a poet or essayist, like Bryant or in some respects Matthew Arnold, or a statesman like Gladstone or Wilson, is a puritan. The purpose of this paper is to anal

yze and determine, if possible, the fundamental traits of puritanism in this general sense, particularly in so far as the tendency is observable in literature and the writers of litera

ture.

First of all, it is not a historical term. Back of the Texas boys' and girls' objection to being called puritan lay, of course, their inherited dislike of the Puritan of history, the Roundhead of the seventeenth century, the harsh and fanatic follower of Cromwell, leveller of those in great estate, and traditional antagonist of the graceful and ease-loving Cavalier from whom they imagine themselves descended. The word in this sense may without levity be called Puritanism with a capital P. It is purely historical, chronologically limited to a certain period and to definite localities, and hence cannot properly be applied, except in a figurative sense, to any person or movement of today.

As used in the religious sense, the term applies to the Calvinistic sects and suggests the doctrines of predestination, election, and the damnation of infants-the teachings, in this country, of Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards-and the gloomier side of the worship of the Pilgrims and the Covenanters. This religious meaning is partly synchronous with the historical and by some writers is confused or combined with it. It is equally unsatisfactory for our purposes, for whatever puritanism is, it is not a religion, much as it may be concerned with religious matters. In fact, the phrase "the Puritan Church" or "the Puritan religion" freely used by some writers has no justification, because there never was a Puritan Church as such, though of puritan churches there have been, and are, a plenty. In Commonwealth times, for instance, these included the Presbyterians (most prominent), the Baptists, various sects of Independents or Congregationalists, some Separatist bodies, and a considerable portion of the Anglican church itself; and in the eighteenth century both the Wesleyan and the Unitarian movements were protests largely actuated by the puritan spirit. Today, in religious circles, puritanism is likely to be mainly a matter of congregational individuality. In most communities of any size there will be found two or more churches, of which one may generally be singled out as

leaning more toward puritanism in its views than the rest. If this church is more likely to be Presbyterian or Methodist than any other, such is by no means always the case. The mind of any reader will doubtless recall localities in which the Baptists, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, or any other sect play the same role. Among five college faculties I have known, the truest types of puritan character in my judgment were respectively a Congregationalist, an Episcopalian, a Lutheran, a Unitarian, and a Methodist. Morals and conduct are more likely to concern the puritan temperament than religious differences; and certainly puritanism in the field of literature or any other art is not associated with any religious sect or creed.

The third, or "general vulgar" conception, which is somewhat distinct from both the historical and the religious, is well enough characterized in the following paragraph from a student's paper:

"The Puritan attitude toward life is that life is a longfaced religious affair which needs constant guarding to keep it out of sin. To the Puritan life is stern and hard. Self-denial, work, and strict adherence to the word of the Bible are the rules for a man to live by. The Puritan cannot indulge in any levity or pleasure, but he is serious in everything." Religiosity, ascetism, narrow-mindedness, long-facedness-something, in short, like complete pessimism, are the traits the average man attributes to the puritan as a person, dissociated from the historical sense. This third meaning, it will be noticed, while a somewhat general one, not subject to the limitations of time or creed of the other two, is always restricted by the idea of reproach inseparable from it. Nor is it a fair or sound judgment which would make long-faced despondency or moroseness the dominating elements of puritanism. The reformation of the English church, the establishment of the Commonwealth, the difficult and dangerous building up of the colonies in New England, the abolition of slavery in England and America-none of these tasks was the work of pessimists or of men who feared that the right might not prevail though darkness encompassed them about.

Puritanism in the general sense is not a historical movement, not a religion, not mere gloom and asceticism, but a positive and

definite attitude toward life and its issues and problems. Its real significance as a force in literature and thought may perhaps best be brought out by comparing it with its opposite. For this purpose no better illustration could be chosen than the sharp difference between Geoffrey Chaucer and two of his contemporaries, John Wyclif and the personage generally known as William Langland, reputed author of the Vision of William concerning Piers the Plowman.

The age in which these men lived and wrote in England was one of great complexity and sharp contrasts. It was marked by brilliant victories and disastrous defeats abroad, and at home by the wealth and power of the ruling classes, the fading splendor of the institutions of chivalry, a quickened national interest in learning, the arts, and commerce, and the influence, luxury, and magnificence of the higher clergy. It was equally marked by the misery of the poor, distressed by famine, plague, foreign wars, and feudal servitude; by constant economic shiftings, propaganda, and disturbances, culminating in bloody insurrection as bloodily put down; by a changeable and insecure dynasty; by every kind of quackery in medicine, science, finance, and religion; and by such slothfulness, corruption, and vice among the lower clergy as earned for them the contempt, suspicion, and ridicule of the cynical and the indignant and outspoken condemnation of the seriousminded.

Chaucer, in his manifold capacities as courtier, soldier, ambassador, customs collector, contractor, member of parliament, and poet, saw and was intimately familiar with practically all the forms and phases of English society of his time, and in his works he realistically reproduces all except, perhaps, its very highest and lowest stages. His bearing is ever that of the active, interested observer, passing through life alive to all about him and keenly enjoying the world as he found it. Even allowing for his individual buoyancy of spirit attested in adversity by his Compleynt to his Empty Purse, we find his natural attitude to be one of complacency, of acceptance of the circumstances and standards of his age. There is no serious note of dissatisfaction or complaint, no suggestion that "the times are out of joint." His quick eye