I begin by adjoining two passages – one about freedom, the other about walking. By what odd logic does their mere proximity suggest an equation or an identity between the central terms? Perhaps the transformation of contiguity into sequence that reading produces offers one clue; reading the passages in succession, we are inclined to complete the implicit syllogism, and conclude that “freedom is walking.” We are accustomed to expect from narrative a progressive expansion of knowledge, and Holmes's description of walking, since it follows Simmel's description of the freedom made possible by money, may seem to consolidate the abstract language of the first. But this narrative logic cannot explain the full force of the equation between descriptions of walking and freedom that occurs as a consequence of their symmetrical arrangement.