a little while ago i fell out of england into the town of paris. if a man fell out of the moon into the town of paris he would know that it was the capital of a great nation. if, however, he fell (perhaps off some other side of the moon) so as to hit the city of london, he would not know so well that it was the capital of a great nation; at any rate, he would not know that the nation was so great as it is. this would be so even on the assumption that the man from the moon could not read our alphabet, as presumably he could not, unless elementary education in that planet has gone to rather unsuspected lengths. but it is true that a great part of the distinctive quality which separates paris from london may be even seen in the names. real democrats always insist that england is an aristocratic country. real aristocrats always insist (for some mysterious reason) that it is a democratic country. but if any one has any real doubt about the matter let him consider simply the names of the streets. nearly all the streets out of the strand, for instance, are named after the first name, second name, third name, fourth, fifth, and sixth names of some particular noble family; after their relations, connections, or places of residence—arundel street, norfolk street, villiers street, bedford street, southampton street, and any number of others. the names are varied, so as to introduce the same family under all sorts of different surnames. thus we have arundel street and also norfolk street; thus we have buckingham street and also villiers street. to say that this is not aristocracy is simply intellectual impudence. i am an ordinary citizen, and my name is gilbert keith chesterton; and i confess that if i found three streets in a row in the strand, the first called gilbert street, the second keith street, and the third chesterton street, i should consider that i had become a somewhat more important person in the commonwealth than was altogether good for its health. if frenchmen ran london (which god forbid!), they would think it quite as ludicrous that those streets should be named after the duke of buckingham as that they should be named after me. they are streets out of one of the main thoroughfares of london. if french methods were adopted, one of them would be called shakspere street, another cromwell street, another wordsworth street; there would be statues of each of these persons at the end of each of these streets, and any streets left over would be named after the date on which the reform bill was passed or the penny postage established.

suppose a man tried to find people in london by the names of the places. it would make a fine farce, illustrating our illogicality. our hero having once realised that buckingham street was named after the buckingham family, would naturally walk into buckingham palace in search of the duke of buckingham. to his astonishment he would meet somebody quite different. his simple lunar logic would lead him to suppose that if he wanted the duke of marlborough (which seems unlikely) he would find him at marlborough house. he would find the prince of wales. when at last he understood that the marlboroughs live at blenheim, named after the great marlborough's victory, he would, no doubt, go there. but he would again find himself in error if, acting upon this principle, he tried to find the duke of wellington, and told the cabman to drive to waterloo. i wonder that no one has written a wild romance about the adventures of such an alien, seeking the great english aristocrats, and only guided by the names; looking for the duke of bedford in the town of that name, seeking for some trace of the duke of norfolk in norfolk. he might sail for wellington in new zealand to find the ancient seat of the wellingtons. the last scene might show him trying to learn welsh in order to converse with the prince of wales.

but even if the imaginary traveller knew no alphabet of this earth at all, i think it would still be possible to suppose him seeing a difference between london and paris, and, upon the whole, the real difference. he would not be able to read the words "quai voltaire;" but he would see the sneering statue and the hard, straight roads; without having heard of voltaire he would understand that the city was voltairean. he would not know that fleet street was named after the fleet prison. but the same national spirit which kept the fleet prison closed and narrow still keeps fleet street closed and narrow. or, if you will, you may call fleet street cosy, and the fleet prison cosy. i think i could be more comfortable in the fleet prison, in an english way of comfort, than just under the statue of voltaire. i think that the man from the moon would know france without knowing french; i think that he would know england without having heard the word. for in the last resort all men talk by signs. to talk by statues is to talk by signs; to talk by cities is to talk by signs. pillars, palaces, cathedrals, temples, pyramids, are an enormous dumb alphabet: as if some giant held up his fingers of stone. the most important things at the last are always said by signs, even if, like the cross on st. paul's, they are signs in heaven. if men do not understand signs, they will never understand words.

for my part, i should be inclined to suggest that the chief object of education should be to restore simplicity. if you like to put it so, the chief object of education is not to learn things; nay, the chief object of education is to unlearn things. the chief object of education is to unlearn all the weariness and wickedness of the world and to get back into that state of exhilaration we all instinctively celebrate when we write by preference of children and of boys. if i were an examiner appointed to examine all examiners (which does not at present appear probable), i would not only ask the teachers how much knowledge they had imparted; i would ask them how much splendid and scornful ignorance they had erected, like some royal tower in arms. but, in any case, i would insist that people should have so much simplicity as would enable them to see things suddenly and to see things as they are. i do not care so much whether they can read the names over the shops. i do care very much whether they can read the shops. i do not feel deeply troubled as to whether they can tell where london is on the map so long as they can tell where brixton is on the way home. i do not even mind whether they can put two and two together in the mathematical sense; i am content if they can put two and two together in the metaphorical sense. but all this longer statement of an obvious view comes back to the metaphor i have employed. i do not care a dump whether they know the alphabet, so long as they know the dumb alphabet.

unfortunately, i have noticed in many aspects of our popular education that this is not done at all. one teaches our london children to see london with abrupt and simple eyes. and london is far more difficult to see properly than any other place. london is a riddle. paris is an explanation. the education of the parisian child is something corresponding to the clear avenues and the exact squares of paris. when the parisian boy has done learning about the french reason and the roman order he can go out and see the thing repeated in the shapes of many shining public places, in the angles of many streets. but when the english boy goes out, after learning about a vague progress and idealism, he cannot see it anywhere. he cannot see anything anywhere, except sapolio and the daily mail. we must either alter london to suit the ideals of our education, or else alter our education to suit the great beauty of london.