standard cannot, therefore, be accepted as a solution. There must not
be any one single central body, any authoritative single control, for
such a body or authority would inevitably develop a "character" in its
activity and greet with especial favour (or with especial disfavour)
certain types. In this case, at any rate, organization is not
centralization, and it is also not uniformity. The proposition may
indeed be thrown out that the principle of Many Channels (a principle
involving the repudiation both of the monarchical and the democratic
idea) is an essential one to go upon in all questions of honour and
promotion in the modern state. And not only Many Channels, but Many
Methods. Whatever the value of that as a universally valuable
proposition, it certainly applies here.

And next we may suggest that we must take great care that we pay for
the thing we need and not for some subsidiary qualification of less
value. The reward must be directly related to the work, and independent
of all secondary considerations. It must have no taint of charity. The
recipient must not have to show that he is in want. Because a writer or
investigator is a sober, careful body and quite solvent in a modest
way, that is no reason why we should not pay him stimulatingly for his
valuable contributions to the general mind, or because he is a
shiftless seeker of misfortunes, why we should pay him in excess. But
pay him anyhow. Almost scandalous private immorality, I submit, should
not bar the literary worker from his pay any more than it justifies our
stealing his boots. We must deal with immorality as immorality, and
with work as work. Above all, at the present time, we must keep clearly
in view that popularity has no relation to literary, philosophic or
scientific value, it neither justifies nor condemns. At present, except
in the case of certain forms of research and in relation to the
altogether too charitable-looking British Civil List, we make