Now, poets in our epoch will tend towards ecclesiastical religion strictly because it is just a little more free than anything else.  Take, for instance, the case of symbol and ritualism.  All reasonable men believe in symbol; but some reasonable men do not believe in ritualism; by which they mean, I imagine, a symbolism too complex, elaborate, and mechanical.  But whenever they talk of ritualism they always seem to mean the ritualism of the Church.  Why should they not mean the ritual of the world?  It is much more ritualistic.  The ritual of the Army, the ritual of the Navy, the ritual of the Law Courts, the ritual of Parliament are much more ritualistic.  The ritual of a dinner-party is much more ritualistic.  Priests may put gold and great jewels on the chalice; but at least there is only one chalice to put them on.  When you go to a dinner-party they put in front of you five different chalices, of five weird and heraldic shapes, to symbolise five different kinds of wine; an insane extension of ritual from which Mr. Percy Dearmer would fly shrieking.  A bishop wears a mitre; but he is not thought more or less of a bishop according to whether you can see the very latest curves in his mitre.  But a swell is thought more or less of a swell according to whether you can see the very latest curves in his hat.  There is more fuss about symbols in the world than in the Church.

And yet (strangely enough) though men fuss more about the worldly symbols, they mean less by them.  It is the mark of religious forms that they declare something unknown.  But it is the mark of worldly forms that they declare something which is known, and which is known to be untrue.  When the Pope in an Encyclical calls himself your father, it is a matter of faith or of doubt.  But when the Duke of Devonshire in a letter calls himself yours obediently, you know that he means the opposite of what he says.  Religious forms are, at the worst, fables; they might be true.  Secular forms are falsehoods; they are not true.  Take a more topical case.  The German Emperor has more uniforms than the Pope.  But, moreover, the Pope’s vestments all imply a claim to be something purely mystical and doubtful.  Many of the German Emperor’s uniforms imply a claim to be something which he certainly is not and which it would be highly disgusting if he were.  The Pope may or may not be the Vicar of Christ.  But the Kaiser certainly is not an English Colonel.  If the thing were reality it would be treason.  If it is mere ritual, it is by far the most unreal ritual on earth.

Now, poetical people like Francis Thompson will, as things stand, tend away from secular society and towards religion for the reason above described:  that there are crowds of symbols in both, but that those of religion are simpler and mean more.  To take an evident type, the Cross is more poetical than the Union Jack, because it is simpler.  The more simple an idea is, the more it is fertile in variations.