Post-Prandial Philosophy is a Webnovel created by Grant Allen.
This lightnovel is currently completed.
X.
_THE MONOPOLIST INSTINCTS._
In the first of these after-dinner _causeries_ I ventured humbly to remark that Patriotism was a vulgar vice of which I had never been guilty. That innocent indiscretion of mine aroused at the moment some unfavourable comment. I confess I was sorry for it. But I pa.s.sed it by at the time, lest I should speak too hastily and lose my temper. I recur to the subject now, at the hour of the cigarette, when man can discourse most genially of his bitterest enemy. And Monopoly is mine. Its very name is hateful.
I don’t often say what I think. At least, not much of it. I don’t often get the chance. And, besides, being a timid and a modest man, I’m afraid to. But just this once, I’m going to “try it on.” Object to my opinions as you will. But still, let me express them. Strike–but hear me!
Has it ever occurred to you that one object of reading is to learn things you never thought of before, and would never think of now, unless you were told them?
Patriotism is one of the Monopolist Instincts. And the Monopolist Instincts are the greatest enemies of the social life in humanity. They are what we have got in the end to outlive. The test of a man’s place in the scale of being is how far he has outlived them. They are surviving relics of the ape and tiger. But we must let the ape and tiger die. We must begin to be human.
I will take Patriotism first, because it is the most specious of them all, and has still a self-satisfied way of masquerading as a virtue. But after all what is Patriotism? “My country, right or wrong; and just because it is _my_ country.” It is nothing more than a wider form of selfishness. Often enough, indeed, it is even a narrow one. It means, “My business interests against the business interests of other people; and let the taxes of my fellow-citizens pay to support them.” At other times it is pure Jingoism. It means, “_My_ country against other countries! _My_ army and navy against other fighters! _My_ right to annex unoccupied territory over the equal right of all other people!
_My_ power to oppress all weaker nationalities, all inferior races!” It _never_ means anything good. For if a cause is just, like Ireland’s, or once Italy’s, then ’tis the good man’s duty to espouse it with warmth, be it his own or another’s. And if a cause be bad, then ’tis the good man’s duty to oppose it tooth and nail, irrespective of your “Patriotism.” True, a good man will feel more sensitively anxious that justice should be done by the particular State of which he happens himself to be a member than by any other, because he is partly responsible for the corporate action; but then, people who feel deeply this joint moral responsibility of all the citizens are not praised as patriots but reviled as unpatriotic. To urge that our own country should strive with all its might to be better, higher, purer, n.o.bler, juster than other countries around it–the only kind of Patriotism worth a bra.s.s farthing in a righteous man’s eyes–is accounted by most men both wicked and foolish.
Patriotism, then, is the collective or national form of the Monopolist Instincts. And like all those Instincts, it is a relic of savagery, which the Man of the Future is now engaged in out-living.
Property is the next form. That, on the very face of it, is a viler and more sordid one. For Patriotism at least can lay claim to some expansiveness beyond mere individual interest; whereas property stops dead short at the narrowest limits. It is not “Us against the world!”
but “Me against my fellow-citizens!” It is the final result of the industrial war in its most hideous avatar. Look how it scars the fair face of our England with its anti-social notice-boards, “Trespa.s.sers will be prosecuted!” It says, in effect, “This is my land. G.o.d made it; but I have acquired it and tabooed it. The gra.s.s on it grows green; but only for me. The mountains rise beautiful; no foot of man, save mine and my gamekeepers’, shall tread them. The waterfalls gleam fresh and cool in the glen: avaunt there, you non-possessors; _you_ shall never see them! All this is my own. And I choose to monopolise it.”
Or is it the capitalist? “I will add field to field,” he says, in despite of his own scripture; “I will join railway to railway. I will juggle into my own hands all the instruments for the production of wealth that I can lay hold of; and I will use them for myself against the producer and the consumer. I will enrich myself by ‘corners’ on the necessaries of life; I will make food dear for the poor, that I myself may roll in needless luxury. I will monopolise whatever I can seize, and the people may eat straw.” That temper, too, humanity must outlive. And those who can’t outlive it of themselves, or be warned in time, must be taught by stern lessons that their race has outstripped them.
As for slavery, ’tis now gone. That was the vilest of them all. It was the naked a.s.sertion of the Monopolist platform: “You live, not for yourself, but wholly and solely for me. I disregard your life entirely, and use you as my chattel.” It died at last of the moral indignation of humanity. It died when a Southern court of so-called justice formulated in plain words the underlying principle of its hateful creed: “A black man has no rights which a white man is bound to respect.” That finally finished it. We no longer allow every man to “wallop his own n.i.g.g.e.r.”
And though the last relics of it die hard in Queensland, South Africa, Demerara, we have at least the satisfaction of knowing that one Monopolist Instinct out of the group is pretty well bred out of us.
Except as regards women! There, it lingers still. The Man says even now to himself:–“This woman is mine. If she ventures to have a heart or a will of her own, woe betide her! I have tabooed her for life; let any other man touch her, let her look at any other man–and–knife, revolver, or law court, they shall both of them answer for it!” There you have in all its natural ugliness another Monopolist Instinct–the deepest-seated of all, the vilest, the most barbaric. She is not yours: she is her own: unhand her! The Turk takes his offending slave, sews her up in a sack, and flings her into the Bosphorus. The Christian Englishman drags her shame before an open court, and divorces her with contumely. Her shame, I say, in the common phrase, because though to me it is no shame that any human being should follow the dictates of his or her own heart, it is a shame to the woman in the eyes of the world, and a life of disgrace she must live thenceforward. All this is Monopoly and essentially slavery. As man lives down the Ape and Tiger stage, he will learn to say, rather: “Be mine while you can; but the day you cease to feel you can be mine willingly, don’t disgrace your own body by yielding it up where your soul feels loathing; don’t consent to be the mother of children by a father you despise or dislike or are tired of. Let us kiss and part. Go where you will; and my good will go with you!” Till the man can say that with a sincere heart, why, to borrow a phrase from George Meredith, he may have pa.s.sed Seraglio Point, but he hasn’t rounded Cape Turk yet.
You find that a hard saying, do you? You kick against freedom for wife or daughter? Well, yes, no doubt; you are still a Monopolist. But, believe me, the earnest and solemn expression of a profound belief never yet did harm to any one. I look forward to the time when women shall be as free in every way as men, not by levelling down, but by levelling up; not, as some would have us think, by enslaving the men, but by elevating, emanc.i.p.ating, unshackling the women.
There is a charming little ditty in Louis Stevenson’s “Child’s Garden of Verse,” which always seems to me to sum up admirably the Monopolist att.i.tude. Here it is. Look well at it:–
“When I am grown to man’s estate I shall be very proud and great, And tell the other girls and boys, Not to meddle with _my_ toys.”
That is the way of the Monopolist. It catches him in the very act. He says to all the world: “Hands off! My property! Don’t walk on my gra.s.s!
Don’t trespa.s.s in my park! Beware of my gunboats! No trifling with my women! I am the king of the castle. You meddle with me at your peril.”
“Ours!” not “Mine!” is the watchword of the future.
XI.
“_MERE AMATEURS._”
“He was a mere amateur; but still, he did some good work in science.”
Increasingly of late years I have heard these condescending words uttered, in the fatherland of Bacon, of Newton, of Darwin, when some Bates or Spottiswoode has been gathered to his fathers. It was not so once. Time was when all English science was the work of amateurs–and very well indeed the amateurs did it. I don’t think anybody who does me the honour to cognise my humble individuality at all will ever be likely to mistake me for a _laudator temporis acti_. On the contrary, so far as I can see, the past seems generally to have been such a distinct failure all along the line that the one lesson we have to learn from it is, to go and do otherwise. I am one on that point with Sh.e.l.ley and Rousseau.
But it does not follow, because most old things are bad, that all new things and rising things are necessarily and indisputably in their own nature excellent. Novelties, too, may be retrograde. And even our great-grandfathers occasionally blundered upon something good in which we should do well to imitate them. The amateurishness of old English science was one of these good things now in course of abolition by the fashionable process of Germanisation.
Don’t imagine it was only for France that 1870 was fatal. The sad successes of that deadly year sent a wave of triumphant Teutonism over the face of Europe.
I suppose it is natural to man to worship success; but ever since 1870 it is certainly the fact that if you wish to gain respect and consideration for any proposed change of system you must say, “They do it so in Germany.” In education and science this is especially the case.
Pedants always admire pedants. And Germany having shown herself to be easily first of European States in her pedant-manufacturing machinery, all the a.s.sembled dominies of all the rest of the world exclaimed with one voice, “Go to! Let us Germanise our educational system!”
Now, the German is an excellent workman in his way. Patient, laborious, conscientious, he has all the highest qualities of the ideal brick-maker. He produces the best bricks, and you can generally depend upon him to turn out both honest and workmanlike articles. But he is not an architect. For the architectonic faculty in its highest developments you must come to England. And he is not a teacher or expounder. For the expository faculty in its purest form, the faculty that enables men to flash forth clearly and distinctly before the eyes of others the facts and principles they know and perceive themselves, you must go to France.
Oh, dear, yes; we may well be proud of England. Remember, I have already disclaimed more than once in these papers the vulgar error of patriotism. But freedom from that narrow vice does not imply inability to recognise the good qualities of one’s own race as well as the bad ones. And the Englishman, left to himself and his own native methods, used to cut a very respectable figure indeed in the domain of science.
No other nation has produced a Newton or a Darwin. The Englishman’s way was to get up an interest in a subject first; and then, working back from the part of it that specially appealed to his own tastes, to make himself master of the entire field of inquiry. This natural and thoroughly individualistic English method enabled him to arrive at new results in a way impossible to the pedantically educated German–nay, even to the lucidly and systematically educated Frenchman. It was the plan to develop “mere amateurs,” I admit; but it was also the plan to develop discoverers and revolutionisers of science. For the man most likely to advance knowledge is not the man who knows in an encyclopaedic rote-work fashion the whole circle of the sciences, but the man who takes a fresh interest for its own sake in some particular branch of inquiry.
Darwin was a “mere amateur.” He worked at things for the love of them.
So were Murchison, Lyell, Benjamin Franklin, Herschel. So were or are Bates, Herbert Spencer, Alfred Russel Wallace. “Mere amateurs!” every man of them.
In an evil hour, however, our pastors and masters in conclave a.s.sembled said to one another, “Come now, let us Teutonise English scientific education.” And straightway they Teutonised it. And there began to arise in England a new brood of patent machine-made scientists–excellent men in their way, authorities on the Arachnida, knowing all about everything that could be taught in the schools, but lacking somehow the supreme grace of the old English originality. They are first-rate specialists, I allow; and I don’t deny that a civilised country has all need of specialists. Nay, I even admit that the day of the specialist has only just begun. He will yet go far; he will impose himself and his yoke upon us. But don’t let us therefore make the grand mistake of concluding that our fine old English birthright in science–the birthright that gave us our Newtons, our Cavendishes, our Darwins, our Lyells–was all folly and error. Don’t let us spoil ourselves in order to become mere second-hand Germans. Let us recognise the fact that each nation has a work of its own to do in the world; and that as star from star, so one nation differeth from another in glory. Let each of us thank the goodness and the grace that on his birth have smiled, that he was born of English breed, and not a German child.
“Don’t you think,” a military gentleman once said to me, “the Germans are wonderful organisers?” “No,” I answered, “I don’t; but I think they’re excellent drill-sergeants.”
There are people who drop German authorities upon you as if a Teutonic name were guarantee enough for anything. They say, “Hausberger a.s.serts,”
or “According to Schimmelpenninck.” This is pure fetichism. Believe me, your man of science isn’t necessarily any the better because he comes to you with the label, “Made in Germany.” The German instinct is the instinct of Frederick William of Prussia–the instinct of drilling. Very thorough and efficient men in their way it turns out; men versed in all the lore of their chosen subject. If they are also men of transcendent ability (as often happens), they can give us a comprehensive view of their own chosen field such as few Englishmen (except Sir Archibald Geikie, and he’s a Scot) can equal. If I wanted to select a learned man for a special Government post–British Museum, and so forth–I dare say I should often be compelled to admit, as Government often admits, that the best man then and there obtainable is the German. But if I wanted to train Herbert Spencers and Faradays, I would certainly _not_ send them to Bonn or to Berlin. John Stuart Mill was an English Scotchman, educated and stuffed by his able father on the German system; and how much of spontaneity, of vividness, of _verve_, we all of us feel John Stuart Mill lost by it! One often wonders to what great, to what still greater, things that lofty brain might not have attained, if only James Mill would have given it a chance to develop itself naturally!
Our English gift is originality. Our English keynote is individuality.
Let us cling to those precious heirlooms of our Celtic ancestry, and refuse to be Teutonised. Let us discard the lessons of the Potsdam grenadiers. Let us write on the pediment of our educational temple, “No German need apply.” Let us disclaim that silly phrase “A mere amateur.”
Let us return to the simple faith in direct observation that made English science supreme in Europe.
And may the Lord gi’e us Britons a guid conceit o’ oorsel’s!
XII.
_A SQUALID VILLAGE._
Strange that the wealthiest cla.s.s in the wealthiest country in the world should so long have been content to inhabit a squalid village!
I’m not going to compare London, as Englishmen often do, with Paris or Vienna. I won’t do two great towns that gross injustice. And, indeed, comparison here is quite out of the question. You don’t compare Oxford with Little Peddlington, or Edinburgh with Thrums, and then ask which is the handsomest. Things must be alike in kind before you can begin to compare them. And London and Paris are not alike in kind. One is a city, and a n.o.ble city; the other is a village, and a squalid village.
No; I will not even take a humbler standard of comparison, and look at London side by side with Brussels, Antwerp, Munich, Turin. Each of those is a city, and a fine city in its way; but each of them is small. Still, even by their side, London is again but a squalid village. I insist upon that point, because, misled by their ancient familiarity with London, most Englishmen have had their senses and understandings so blunted on this issue, that they really don’t know what is meant by a town, or a fine town, when they see one. And don’t suppose it’s because London is in Britain and these other towns out of it that I make these remarks: for Bath is a fine town, Edinburgh is a fine town, even Glasgow and Newcastle are towns, while London is still a straggling, sprawling, invertebrate, inchoate, overgrown village. I am as free, I hope, from anti-patriotic as from patriotic prejudice. The High Street in Oxford, Milsom Street in Bath, Princes Street in Edinburgh, those are all fine streets that would attract attention even in France or Germany. But the Strand, Piccadilly, Regent Street, Oxford Street–good Lord, deliver us!
One more _caveat_ as to my meaning. When I cite among real towns Brussels, Antwerp, and Munich, I am not thinking of the treasures of art those beautiful places contain; that is another and altogether higher question. Towns supreme in this respect often lag far behind others of less importance–lag behind in those external features and that general architectural effectiveness which rightly ent.i.tle us to say in a broad sense, “This is a fine city.” Florence, for example, contains more treasures of art in a small s.p.a.ce than any other town of Europe; yet Florence, though undoubtedly a town, and even a fine town, is not to be compared in this respect, I do not say with Venice or Brussels, but even with Munich or Milan. On the other hand, London contains far more treasures of art in its way than Boston, Ma.s.sachusetts; but Boston is a handsome, well-built, regular town, while London–well, I will spare you the further repet.i.tion of the trite truism that London is a squalid village. In one word, the point I am seeking to bring out here is that a town, as a town, is handsome or otherwise, not in virtue of the works of art or antiquity it contains, but in virtue of its ground-plan, its architecture, its external and visible decorations and places–the Louvre, the Boulevards, the Champs Elysees, the Place de l’Opera.
Now London has no ground-plan. It has no street architecture. It has no decorations, though it has many uglifications. It is frankly and simply and ostentatiously hideous. And being wholly wanting in a system of any sort–in organic parts, in idea, in views, in vistas–it is only a village, and a painfully uninteresting one.
Most Englishmen see London before they see any other great town. They become so familiarised with it that their sense of comparison is dulled and blunted. I had the good fortune to have seen many other great towns before I ever saw London: and I shall never forget my first sense of surprise at its unmitigated ugliness.
Get on top of an omnibus–I don’t say in Paris, from the Palais Royal to the Arc de Triomphe, but in Brussels, from the Gare du Nord to the Palais de Justice–and what do you see? From end to end one unbroken succession of n.o.ble and open prospects. I’m not thinking now of the Grande Place in the old town, with its magnificent collection of mediaeval buildings; the Great Fire effectively deprived us of our one sole chance of such an element of beauty in modern London. I confine myself on purpose to the parts of Brussels which are purely recent, and might have been imitated at a distance in London, if there had been any public spirit or any public body in England to imitate them. (But unhappily there was neither.) Recall to mind as you read the strikingly handsome street view that greets you as you emerge from the Northern Station down the great central Boulevards to the Gare du Midi–all built within our own memory. Then think of the prospects that gradually unfold themselves as you rise on the hill; the fine vista north towards Sainte Marie de Schaarbeck; the beautiful Rue Royale, bounded by that charming Parc; the unequalled stretch of the Rue de la Regence, starting from the Place Royale with G.o.dfrey of Bouillon, and ending with the imposing ma.s.s of the Palais de Justice. It is to me a matter for mingled surprise and humiliation that so many Englishmen can look year after year at that glorious street–perhaps the finest in the world–and yet never think to themselves, “Mightn’t we faintly imitate some small part of this in our wealthy, ugly, uncompromising London?”
I always say to Americans who come to Europe: “When you go to England, don’t see our towns, but see our country. Our country is something unequalled in the world: while our towns!–well, anyway, keep away from London!”