||18 THE TWO HORIZONS these are the essence of aesthetic experience. When Ruskin says, "Taste ... is the ONLY morality," this is Victorian excess of zeal, but it is not at bottom wrong. The arts have long been recognized as sources of personal pleasure and enrichment and thus proper to the education of the cultivated man; they are now claimed as social resources for general education. This is as it should be â€" with one caution: a work of art can have full meaning and effect only as it retains full character as art, not merely partial character as historical document or means of propaganda. In art so regarded, as often in the humanities and in all education at its best, the two horizons become one; what is good now is good for the long pull, and â€" we almost dare to say â€" quod semper, quod ubique, et quod omnibus, always, everywhere, for everybody. I have called literature the exemplar of the arts. President Chalmers of Kenyon College describes it as "the subject most concerned with the account of man, .... that immense body of evidence about ourselves which observers of the clearest sight and most acute good judgment have set down," and adds, "in literary study alone lie the knowledge and the peculiar ability which permit one to assemble sense, reason, intuition, imagination, nuance, metaphor, and overtone in order to apprehend the whole event of men's inner lives." 15 Let us briefly note some of the grounds for such a verdict.16 Literature has its direct and immediately personal rewards, among them entertainment, the thrill of beauty, and the sense of experience and of meaning in experience. Its indirect and ultimately social values rise from the same sources as its more intimate rewards, and chiefly from two. The first of these social potentials is the range and depth of insight, the multiple truths about men and women and their transactions, the infinite variety and difference and yet the infinite unity and likeness of the world of Homer, Shakespeare, Whitman, Tolstoi, Mann, Malraux. This world is essentially human nature; to study it is to study life in its most meaningful aspect. It is a free world, for the house of art has many mansions; earthy fellows like Aristophanes and Chaucer rub shoulders there with Dante, and he with Voltaire. The denizens of the police-state must live on a one-way street, but literature finds room for Huck Finn and Uncle Toby, Gargantua and Don Quixote and the Cheshire Cat, and thus looks toward the Good Society. If reach is the first great social potential of literature, impact is the second. The imaginative interpretation of fact may do what fact itself cannot. Is it the psychologist's study or Dostoevsky's Raskolnikoff that makes lucid the rationale of a crime? economic history or Swift that brings home the despair and bitterness of Ireland? a treatise on race or Faulkner's stories that tell us what a lynching really means? Knowledge must put on flesh and blood, it must be felt, to become a possession of our whole selves and thus a cause of action, which, as Aristotle says, is the end for which we live. "In "The Prerequisite of Christian Education," American Scholar, XVI (Autumn, 1947), 474-475. 16 The remainder of this section is in part condensed from my article, "Literature and the Good Society," Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors, XXXII (Spring, 1946), 40-50.