antidote of sports and games to create countervailing force. 
They bog down into grim earnest. Men without art, and men 
without the popular arts of games, tend toward automatism.

     A comment on the different kinds of games played in the 
British Parliament and the French Chamber of Deputies will rally 
the political experience of many readers. The British had the 
luck to get the two-team pattern into the House benches, 
whereas the French, trying for centralism by seating the 
deputies in a semicircle facing the chair, got instead a 
multiplicity of teams playing a great variety of games. By trying 
for unity, the French got anarchy. The British, by setting up 
diversity, achieved, if anything, too much unity. The British 
representative, by playing his “side,” is not tempted into private 
mental effort, nor does he have to follow the debates until the 
ball is passed to him. As one critic said, if the benches did not