" On travaille beaucoup dans le champ des idees en Angleterre..." Non-seulement 1'Angleterre surpasse la France par 1'ardeur et le tra vail, ce qui est malheureusement bien peu dire, et par Finteret des in vestigations et des debats de ses penseurs, mais meme elle laisse loin derriere elle 1'Allemagne en ce dernier point."
And still more recently M. Martins, in the leading French periodical, has been referring to — "les nouvelles idees nees dans la libre Angleterre et appelees a transformer un jour les sciences naturelles." 17 So that while Mr. Arnold is lamenting the want of ideas in England, it is discovered abroad that the genesis of ideas in England is very active. While he thinks our conceptions are commonplace, our neighbours find them new, to the extent of being revolutionary. Oddly enough, at the very time when he is reproaching his countrymen with lack of geist French men are asserting that there is more geist here than anywhere else! Nor is there wanting testimony of kindred nature from other nations. In the lecture above cited, Dr. Cohn, while claiming for Germany a superiority in the number of her earnest workers, says that " England especially has always been, and is particularly now, rich in men whose scientific works are remarkable for their astonishing laboriousness, clearness, profundity, and independence of thought " — a further recognition of the truth that instead of merely plod ding along the old ruts, the English strike out new tracks: are unusually imaginative.
In his essay on the " Functions of Criticism at the Present Time," Mr. Arnold insists that the thing most needful for us now, in all branches of knowledge, is " to see the object as in itself it really is "; and in Friendship's Garland, his alter ego, Arminius, exhorts our Philistinism "to search and not rest till it sees things more as they really are." Above, I have done that which Mr. Arnold urges; not by picking-up stray facts, but by a systematic examination. Feeling sure that Mr. Arnold has himself taken the course he advises, and is therefore familiar with all this evidence, as well as with the large quantity which might be added, I am somewhat puzzled on finding him draw from it a conclusion so different from that which presents itself to me. Were any one, proceeding on the foregoing data, to assert that since the beginning of this cen tury, more lias been done in England to advance scientific knowledge than has ever been done in a like interval, at any time, in any country, I should think his inference less wide of the truth than that which, strange to say, Mr. Arnold draws from the same data.
And now to consider that which more immediately con cerns us — the effect produced by the bias of anti-patriotism on sociological speculation. Whether in Mr. Arnold, whom I have ventured to take as a type, the leaning towards national self-depreciation was primary and the over- valuing of foreign institutions secondary, or whether his admiration of foreign institutions was the cause and his tendency to depreciatory estimates of our social state the effect, is a question which may be left open. For present purposes it suffices to observe that the two go together. Mr. Arnold is impatient with the unregulated and. as he thinks, anarchic state of our society; and everywhere displays a longing for more administrative and controlling agencies. " Force till right is ready," is one of the sayings he emphatically repeats: apparently in the be lief that there can be a sudden transition from a coercive sys tem to a non-coercive one — ignoring the truth that there has to bo a continually-changing compromise between force and right, during which force decreases step by step as right in creases step by step, and during which every step brings some temporary evil along with its ultimate good. Thinking more force needful for us, and lauding institutions which exercise it, Mr. Arnold holds that even in our literature we should benefit by being under authoritative direction. Though he is not of opinion that an Academy would succeed here, he casts longing glances at the French Academy, and wishes we could have had over us an influence like that to which he ascribes certain excellencies in French literature.
The French Academy was established, as he points out, " to work with all the care and all the diligence possible at THE BIAS OP PATRIOTISM. 211 giving sure rules to our "the French] language, and rendering it pore, eloquent, and capable of treating' the arts and sci ences." Let us consider whether it has fulfilled this in tention, by removing the most conspicuous defects of the Ian-Down to the present time, there is in daily use the expression quest ce que c'est! and even qu'est ce que c'est que cela * If in some remote corner of England is heard the analogous expression, — >k what is that there here? " it is held to imply entire absence of culture: the use of two super fluous words proves a want of that close adjustment of lan guage to thought which even partially-educated persons among us have reached. How is it. then, that though in. this French phrase there are five superfluous words (or six if we take cela as twoX the purifying criticism of the French Academy has not removed it from French speech — not even from the speech of the educated? Or why. again, has the Academy not condemned, forbidden, and so expelled from the language, the double negative? If among ourselves any one lets drop the sentence. " I didn't say nothing.'' the in evitable inference is that he has lived with the ill-taught: and. further, that in his mind words and ideas answer to one another very loosely. Though in French the second negative is by derivation positive, yet in acquiring a negative mean ing it became alike superfluous and illogical; and its use should then have been interdicted, instead of being en forced. Once more, why has not the French Academy systematized the senders? No one who considers language as an instrument of thought, which is good in proportion as its special parts are definitely adjusted to special functions, can doubt that a meaningless use of genders is a defect. It is undeniable that to employ marks of gender in ways always suggesting attributes that are possessed, instead of usually suggesting attributes that are not possessed, is an improvement. Having an example of this improvement before them, why did not the Academy introduce it -into French? And then — more significant question still — how, without the aid of any Academy, came the genders to be systematized in Eng lish? Mr. Arnold, and those who. in common with him. seem to believe only in agencies that have visible organizations, might, perhaps, in seeking the answer to this question, lose faith in artificial appliances and gain faith in natural pro cesses. For as, on asking the origin of language in general, we are reminded that all its complex, marvellously-adjusted parts and arrangements have been evolved without the aid or oversight of any embodied power, Academic or other; so, on asking the origin of this particular improvement in language, we find that it, too, arose naturally. Nay, more, it was made possible by one of those anarchic states which Mr. Arnold so much dislikes. Out of the conflict of Old-English dialects, sufficiently allied to co-operate but sufficiently different to have contradictory marks of gender, there came a disuse of meaningless genders and a survival of the genders having meaning — a change which an Academy, had one existed here in those days, would doubtless have done its best to prevent; seeing that during the transition there must have been a dis regard of rules and apparent corruption of speech, out of which no benefit could have been anticipated.
Another fact respecting the French Academy is by no means congruous with Mr. Arnold's conception of its value. The compiling of an authoritative dictionary was a fit under taking for it. Just recalling the well-known contrast between its dilatory execution of this undertaking, and the active exe cution of a kindred one by Dr. Johnson, we have more espe cially to note the recent like contrast between the perform ances of the Academy and the performances of M. Littre. The Academy has long had in hand two dictionaries— the one a second edition of its original dictionary, the other an his torical dictionary. The first is at letter D; and the initial number of the other, containing A — B, issued fifteen years ago, has not yet had a successor. Meanwhile, M. Littre, single-handed, has completed a dictionary which, besides doing all that the two Academy-dictionaries propose to do, does much more. With which marvellous contrast we have to join the startling fact, that M. Littre was refused admission to the Academy in 1863, and at length admitted in 1871 only after violent opposition.
Even if we pass over these duties which, in pursuance of its original purpose, the French Academy might have been expected to perform, and limit ourselves to the duty Mr. Ar nold especially dwells upon — the duty of keeping "the fine quality of the French spirit unimpaired," and exercising "the authority of a recognised master in matters of tone and taste " (to quote his approving paraphrase of M. Kenan's definition) — it may still, I think, be doubted whether there have been achieved by it the benefits Mr. Arnold alleges, and whether there have not been caused great evils. That its selection of members has tended to encourage bad literature instead of good, seems not improbable when we are reminded of its past acts, as we are in the well-known letter of Paul-Louis Courier, in which there occurs this, among other passages similarly damaging: — " Un due et pair honore P Academic francaise, qui ne veut point de Boileau, refuse la Bruyere...mais recoit tout d'abord Chapelain et Conrart. De nieme nous voyons a P Academic grecque le vicomte invite, Corai repousse, lorsque Jomard y entre comme dans un moulin." 18 Nor have its verdicts upon great works been such as to en courage confidence: instance the fact that it condemned the Cid of Corneille, now one of the glories of French literature. Its critical doctrines, too, have not been beyond question. Upholding those canons of dramatic art which so long ex cluded the romantic drama, and maintained the feeling shown by calling Shakspeare an " intoxicated barbarian," may pos sibly have been more detrimental than beneficial. And when we look, not at such select samples of French literary taste as Mr. Arnold quotes, but at samples from the other extreme, we may question whether the total effect has been great. If, as Mr. Arnold thinks, France " is the country in Europe where the people is most alive," it clearly is not alive to the teach ings of the Academy: witness the recent revival of the Pere Duchene; the contents of which are no -less remarkable for their astounding obscenity then for their utter stupidity. Nay, when we look only where we are told to look — only where the Academy exercises its critical function on modern literature, we find reason for scepticism. Instance the late award of the Halphen Prize to the author of a series of poems called L'Invasion, of which M. Patin, a most favourable critic, says: — " Their chief characteristic is a warmth of sentiment and a 'verve,' which one would wish to see under more restraint, but against which one hesitates to set up, however just might be their application under other circumstances, the cold requirements of taste." Thus we have the Academy pandering to the popular feeling. The ebullitions of a patriotic sentiment which it is the misfor tune of France to possess in too great a degree, are not checked by the Academy but encouraged by it: even at the expense of good taste.
And then, lastly, observe that some of the most cultivated Frenchmen, not so wTell satisfied with institutions of the Academy-type as Mr. Arnold seems to be, have recently estab lished, on an English model, a French Association for the Advancement of Science. Here are passages from their pros pectus, published in La Revue Scientifique, 20 Janvier, 1872; commencing with an account of the founding of the Royal Institution: — "II y avait cinquante-huit membres presents a cette reunion. Chacun d'eux souscrivit, sans plus attendre, une action de cinquante guinees; c'est a pen pres treize cents francs de notre monnaie. qui en vaudraient aujourd'hui bien pres de deux mille cinque. Le lendemain, la Societe, [Institution] royale de Londres etait constitute.
'" On sait depuis ce qu'elle est devenue.
" Ce qu'ont fait les Anglais en 1799, d'illustres savants de notre pays veulent le renouveler aujourd'hui pour la France.
" Eux aussi, ils ont juge, comme Rumfort au siecle dernier, que la vieille suprematie du nom fran§ais dans tous les ordres de sciences commencait a etre serieusement ebranlee, et risquait de s'ecrouler un jour.
" A Dieu ne plaise qu'ils accusent 1' Academic de cette decadence! ils en font presque tous partie eux-memes. Mais 1'Academie. qui a conserve en Europe le prestige de son nom, s'enferme un peu plus dans la majeste de sa grandeur. Elle ne possede ni des moyens d'action assez puissants, ni une energie assez active pour les mettre en osuvre. Le nerf de la guerre, 1'argent, lui manque, et plus encore peut-etre 1'initiative intelligente et hardie. Elle s'est endormie dans le respect de ses traditions seculaires."
A further testimony from a foreigner to the value of our methods of aiding intellectual progress, in comparison with continental methods, has been still more recently given by M. Alphonse de Candolle, in his Histoire des Sciences et des Savants. His fear for us is that we may adopt the continental policy and abandon our own. Respecting Science in England, he says: — " Je ne vois qu'un seul indice de faiblesse pour 1'avenir, c'est une disposition croissante des hommes de science a solliciter 1'appui du gouvernement. On dirait qu'ils ne se fient plus aux forces individuelles, dont le resultat pourtant a ete si admirable dans leur pays." 19 Thus, curiously enough, we find another contrast parallel to that noted already. As with English ideas so with English systems— while depreciated at home they are eulogized abroad. While Mr. Arnold is lauding French institutions, Frenchmen, recognizing their shortcomings, are adopting English institu tions. From which we may fairly infer that, great as is Mr. Arnold's desire " to see the object as in itself it really is," he has not in this case succeeded; and that, endeavouring to es cape the bias of patriotism, he has been carried too far the other way by the bias of anti-patriotism.20 One more illustration of the effect this bias has on Mr. Arnold calls for brief comment. Along with his over-valua tion of foreign regulative institutions, there goes an under valuation of institutions at home which do not exhibit the kind of regulation he thinks desirable, and stand in the way of authoritative control. I refer to those numerous Dissent ing organizations characterizing this " anarchy " of ours, which Mr. Arnold curiously makes the antithesis to '' culture."
Mr. Arnold thinks that as a nation we show undue faith in machinery.
" Faith in machinery is, I said, our besetting danger What is freedom but machinery? what is population but machinery? what is coal but machinery? what are railroads but machinery? what is wealth but machinery? what are religious organizations but ma chinery? " " And in pursuance of this conception he regards the desire to get Church-rates abolished and certain restrictions on mar riage removed, as proving undue belief in machinery among Dissenters; while his own disbelief in machinery he considers proved by wishing for stronger governmental restraints,25 by lauding the supervision of an Academy, and by upholding a Church-establishment. I must leave unconsidered the ques tion whether an Academy, if we had one, would authorize this use of language; which makes it seem that voluntary religious agency is machinery and that compulsory religious agency is not machinery. I must pass over, too, Mr. Arnold's compari son of Ecclesiasticism and Nonconformity in respect of the men they have produced. Nor have I space to examine what he says about the mental attitudes of the two. It must suffice to say that were the occasion fit, it might be shown that his endeavour " to see the object as in itself it really is," has not succeeded much better in this case than in the cases above dealt with. Here I must limit myself to a single criticism.
The trait which in Mr. Arnold's view of Nonconformity seems to be most remarkable, is that in breadth it so little transcends the view of the Nonconformists themselves. The two views greatly differ in one respect — antipathy replaces sympathy; but the two views are not widely unlike in exten sion. Avoiding that provincialism of thought which he says characterizes Dissenters, I should have expected Mr. Arnold to estimate Dissent, not under its local and temporary aspect, but under its general aspect as a factor in all societies at all times. Though the Nonconformists themselves think of Non conformity as a phase of Protestantism in England, Mr.
Arnold's studies of other nations, other ages, and other creeds, would, I should have thought, have led him to regard Non conformity as a universal power in societies, which has in our time and country its particular embodiment, but which is to be understood only when contemplated in all its other em bodiments. The thing is one in spirit and tendency, whether shown among the Jews or the Greeks— whether in Catholic Europe or in Protestant England. Wherever there is disa greement with a current belief, no matter what its nature, there is Nonconformity. The open expression of difference and avowed opposition to that which is authoritatively estab lished, constitutes Dissent, whether the religion be Pagan or Christian, Monotheistic or Polytheistic. The relative atti tudes of the dissenter and of those in power, are essentially the same in all cases; and in all cases lead to persecution and vituperation. The Greeks who poisoned Socrates were moved by just the same sentiment as the Catholics who burnt Cranmer, or as the Protestant Churchmen who imprisoned Bunyan and pelted Wesley. And while the manifestations of feeling THE BIAS OP PATRIOTISM. 217 are essentially the same, while the accompanying evils are es sentially the same, the resulting benefits are essentially the same. Is it not a truism that without divergence from that which exists, whether it be in politics, religion, manners, or anything else, there can be no progress? And is it not an obvious corollary that the temporary ills accompanying the divergence, are out-balanced by the eventual good? It is cer tain, as Mr. Arnold holds, that subordination is essential; but it is also certain that insubordination is essential — essential, if there is to be any improvement. There are two extremes in the state of a social aggregate, as of every other aggregate, which are fatal to evolution — rigidity and incoherence. A medium plasticity is the healthful condition. On the one hand, a force of established structures and habits and beliefs, such as offers considerable resistance to change; on the other hand, an originality, an independence, and an opposition to authority, energetic enough to overcome the resistance little by little. And while the political nonconformity we call Eadicalism has the function of thus gradually modifying one set of institutions, the religious nonconformity we call Dis sent has the function of thus gradually modifying another set.
That Mr. Arnold does not take this entirely-unprovincial view, which would lead him to look on Dissenters with less aversion, may in part, I think, be ascribed to that over-valua tion of foreign restraints and under- valuation of home free dom, which his bias of anti-patriotism fosters; and serves further to illustrate the disturbing effects of this bias on socio logical speculation.
And now to sum up this somewhat-too-elaborate argument. The general truth that by incorporation in his society, the citizen is in a measure incapacitated for estimating rightly its characters and actions in relation to those of other societies, has been made abundantly manifest. And it has been made manifest, also, that when he strives to emancipate himself from these influences of race, and country, and locality, which warp his judgment, he is apt to have his judgment warped in the opposite way. From the perihelion of patriotism he is carried to the aphelion of anti-patriotism; and is almost certain to form views that are more or less excentric, instead of circular, all-sided, balanced views.
Partial escape from this difficulty is promised by basing our sociological conclusions chiefly on comparisons made among other societies— excluding our own. But even then these perverting sentiments are sure to intrude more or less; for we cannot contemplate the institutions of other nations without our sympathies or antipathies being in some degree aroused by consciousness of likeness or unlikeness to our own institutions. Discounting our conclusions as well as we may, to allow for the errors we are thus led into, we must leave the entire elimination of such errors to a future in which the de creasing antagonisms of societies will go along witli decreas ing intensities of these sentiments.
CHAPTER X.
MANY years ago a solicitor sitting by me at dinner, com plained bitterly of the injury which the then lately-established County Courts, were doing his profession. He enlarged on the topic in a way implying that he expected me to agree with him in therefore condemning them. So incapable was he of going beyond the professional point of view, that what he re garded as a grievance he thought I also ought to regard as a grievance: oblivious of the fact that the more economical ad ministration of justice of which his lamentation gave me proof, was to me, not being a lawyer, matter for rejoicing.
The bias thus exemplified is a bias by which nearly all have their opinoiis warped. Naval officers disclose their un hesitating belief that we are in imminent danger because the cry for more fighting ships and more sailors has not been met to their satisfaction. The debates on the purchase-system proved how strong was the conviction of military men that our national safety depended on the maintenance of an armyorganization like that in which they were brought up, and had attained their respective ranks. Clerical opposition to the Corn-Laws showed how completely that view which Christian ministers might have been expected to take, was shut out by a view more congruous with their interests and alliances. In all classes and sub-classes it is the same. Hear the murmurs uttered when, because of the Qxieen's absence, there is less ex penditure in entertainments and the so-called gaieties of the season, and you perceive that London traders think the nation suffers if the consumption of superfluities is checked. Study the pending controversy about co-operative stores versus retail shops, and you find the shop keeping mind possessed by the idea that Society commits a wrong if it deserts shops and goes to stores — is quite unconscious that the present distributing system rightly exists only as a means of economically and conveniently supplying consumers, and must yield to another system if that should prove more economical and convenient. Similarly with other trading bodies, general and special — similarly with the merchants who opposed the repeal of the Navigation Laws: similarly with the Coventry-weavers, who like free-trade in all things save ribbons.
The class-bias, like the bias of patriotism, is a reflex ego ism: and like it has its uses and abases. As the strong attach ments citizens feel for their nation cause that enthusiastic co operation by which its integrity is maintained in presence of other nations, severally tending to spread and subjugate their neighbours: so the esprit de corps more or less manifest in each specialized part of the body politic, prompts measures to preserve the integrity of that part in opposition to other parts. all somewhat antagonistic. The egoism of individuals leads to an egoism of the class they form: and besides the separate efforts, generates a joint effort to get an undue share of the aggregate proceeds of social activity. The aggressive tendency of each class, thus produced, has to be balanced by like ag gressive tendencies of other classes. The implied feelings do. in short develop one another: and the respective organiza tions in which they embody themselves develop one another. Large classes of the community marked-off by rank, and sub classes marked-off by special occupations, severally combine, and severally set up organs advocating their interests: the reason Miripifd being in all cases the same— the need for selfdefence.
Along with the good which a society derives from this selfasserting and self -preserving action, by which each division and sub-division keeps itself strong enough for its functions, there goes, among other evils, this which we are considering — the aptness to contemplate all social arrangements in their bearings on class-interests, and the resulting inability to esti mate rightly their effects on Society as a whole. The habit of tkms which directly touch iU»»nlfiii: but it perverts the judgments on questions which touch class-welfare very indi rectly, if at alL It fosters an adapted theory of social relations of everv kind, with sentiments to fit the theory; and a char acteristic stamp is given to the beliefs on public matters in general. Take an instance.
Whatever its technical ownership may be. Hyde Park is open for the public benefit: no title to special benefit is pro ducible by those who ride and drive. It happens, however, that those who ride and drive make large use of it daily; and extensive tracts of it have been laid out for their convenience: the tracts for equestrians having been from time to time in creased. Of people "without carriages and horses, a few, mostly of the kinds who lead easy lives, use Hyde Park frequently as a promenade. Meanwhile, by the great mass of Londoners, too busy to go so far. it is scarcely ever visited: their share of the general benefit is scarcely appreciable.
And now what do the few who have a constant and almost exclusive use of it, think about the occasional use of it by the many? They are angry when, at long intervals, even a small portion of it, quite distant from their haunts, is occu pied for a few hours in ways disagreeable to them — nay. even when such temporary occupation is on a day during which Rotten Row is nearly vacant and the drives not one-third filled. In this, anyone unconcerned may see the influence of the class-bias. But he will have an inadequate conception of its distorting power unless he turns to some letters from members of the ruling class published in the Times in No vember last, when the question of the Park-Rules was being agitated. One writer, signing himself " A Liberal M.P.,~ ex pressing his disgust at certain addresses he heard, proposed, if others would join bim, to give the offensive speakers punishment by force of fists: and then, on a subsequent day. another legislator, similarly moved, writes: — ~ If ' M.P.' is in earnest in his desire to get some honest men to gether to take the law into their own hands. I can promise him a pretty good backing from those who are not afraid to take all the consequences. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, - AX EX-M.P."
And thus we find class-feeling extinguishing rational politi cal thinking so completely that, wonderful to relate, two law-makers propose to support the law by breaking the law!
In larger ways we have of late seen the class-bias doing the same thing — causing contempt for those principles of con stitutional government slowly and laboriously established, and prompting a return to barbaric principles of govern ment. Read the debate about the payment of Governor Eyre's expenses, and study the division-lists, and you see that acts which, according to the Lord Chief Justice, u have brought reproach not only on those who were parties to them, but on the very name of England/' can nevertheless find numerous defenders among men whose class-positions, mili tary, naval, official, &c., make them love power and detest resistance. Nay more, by raising an Eyre-Testimonial Fund and in other ways, there was shown a deliberate approval of acts which needlessly suspended orderly government and substituted unrestrained despotism. There was shown a de liberate ignoring of the essential question raised, which was — whether an executive head might, at will, set aside all those forms of administration by which men's lives and liberties are guarded against tyranny.
More recently, this same class-bias has been shown by the protest made when Mr. Cowan was dismissed for executing the Kooka rioters who had surrendered. The Indian Govern ment, having inquired into the particulars, found that this killing of many men without form of law and contrary to orders, could not be defended on the plea of pressing danger; and finding this, it ceased to employ the officer who had committed so astounding a deed, and removed to another province the superior officer who had approved of the deed. Not excessive punishment, one would say. Some might con tend that extreme mildness was shown in thus inflicting no greater evil than is inflicted on a labourer when he does not execute his work properly. But now mark what is thought by one who displays in words the bias of the governing classes, intensified by life in India. In a letter published in the Times of May 15, 1872, the late Sir Donald M'Leod writes concerning this dismissal and removal: — " All the information that reaches me tends to prove that a severe blow has been given to all chance of vigorous or independent action in future, when emergencies may arise. The whole service appears to have been astonished and appalled by the mode in which the officers have been dealt with."
That we may see clearly what amazing perversions of sentiment and idea are caused by contemplating actions from class points of view, let us turn from this feeling of sympa thy with Mr. Cowan, to the feeling of detestation shown by members of the same class in England towards a man who kills a fox that destroys his poultry. Here is a paragraph from a recent paper: — " Five poisoned foxes have been found in the neighbourhood of Penzance, and there is consequently great indignation among the western sportsmen. A reward of 20/. has been offered for informa tion that shall lead to the conviction of the poisoner." So that wholesale homicide, condemned alike by religion, by equity, by law, is approved, and the mildest punishment of it blamed; while vulpicide, committed in defence of property, and condemned neither by religion, nor by equity, nor by any law save that of sportsmen, excites an anger that cries aloud for positive penalties!