diff options
Diffstat (limited to '79404-h/79404-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | 79404-h/79404-h.htm | 5470 |
1 files changed, 5470 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/79404-h/79404-h.htm b/79404-h/79404-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..98fe36f --- /dev/null +++ b/79404-h/79404-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,5470 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> + <head> + <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <title>The International Crisis in Its Ethical and Psychological Aspects | Project Gutenberg</title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> + body { margin-left: 8%; margin-right: 10%; } + h1 { text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: xx-large; } + h2 { text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: x-large; } + h3 { text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: large; } + .pageno { right: 1%; font-size: x-small; background-color: inherit; color: #585858; + + text-indent: 0em; text-align: right; position: absolute; + border: thin solid #585858; padding: .1em .2em; font-style: normal; + font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; } + p { text-indent: 0; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; text-align: justify; } + sup { vertical-align: top; font-size: 0.6em; } + .sc { font-variant: small-caps; } + .large { font-size: large; } + .xlarge { font-size: x-large; } + .small { font-size: small; } + .lg-container-b { text-align: center; } + .x-ebookmaker .lg-container-b { clear: both; } + .linegroup { display: inline-block; text-align: left; } + .x-ebookmaker .linegroup { display: block; margin-left: 1.5em; } + .linegroup .group { margin: 1em auto; } + .linegroup .line { text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em; } + div.linegroup > :first-child { margin-top: 0; } + .linegroup .in12 { padding-left: 9.0em; } + .ul_1 li {padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em; } + ul.ul_1 {padding-left: 0; margin-left: 2.78%; margin-top: .5em; + margin-bottom: .5em; list-style-type: disc; } + div.footnote > :first-child { margin-top: 1em; } + div.footnote p { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: 0.25em; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } + div.pbb { page-break-before: always; } + hr.pb { border: none; border-bottom: thin solid; margin-bottom: 1em; } + .x-ebookmaker hr.pb { display: none; } + .chapter { clear: both; page-break-before: always; } + .table0 { margin: auto; margin-top: 2em; width: 50%; } + .colwidth11 { width:11% ; } + .colwidth5 { width:5% ; } + .colwidth82 { width:82% ; } + .nf-center { text-align: center; } + .nf-center-c0 { text-align: left; margin: 0.5em 0; } + .c000 { margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + .c001 { margin-top: 4em; } + .c002 { page-break-before: always; margin-top: 1em; } + .c003 { margin-top: 2em; } + .c004 { margin-top: 1em; } + .c005 { page-break-before:auto; margin-top: 4em; } + .c006 { vertical-align: top; text-align: right; padding-right: 1em; } + .c007 { vertical-align: top; text-align: left; text-indent: -1em; + padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em; } + .c008 { vertical-align: bottom; text-align: right; } + .c009 { vertical-align: top; text-align: left; } + .c010 { font-size: 80%; } + .c011 { margin-top: 2em; text-indent: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } + .c012 { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: 0.25em; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } + .c013 { text-decoration: none; } + .c014 { margin-top: 1em; font-size: .9em; } + .c015 { font-size: 70%; } + .c016 { page-break-before: always; margin-top: 2em; } + .c017 { margin-top: 1em; text-indent: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } + .c018 { border: none; border-bottom: thin solid; width: 10%; margin-left: 0; + margin-top: 1em; text-align: left; } + div.tnotes { padding-left:1em; padding-right:1em; background-color:#000000; + color: #ffffff; border:thin black; margin:2em 10% 0 10%; clear: both; } + .covernote { visibility: hidden; display: none; } + div.tnotes p { text-align:left; } + .x-ebookmaker .covernote { visibility: visible; display: block; } + h1 {line-height: 150%; } + .footnote {font-size: .9em; } + div.footnote p {text-indent: 2em; margin-bottom: .5em; } + blockquote {font-size: 90%; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; } + .chapter { clear: both; page-break-before: always; } + body {text-align: justify; } + table {font-size: .9em; padding: 1.5em .5em 1em; page-break-inside: avoid; + clear: both; overflow-x: auto; overflow-y: auto; } + .pageno {font-size: small; background-color:#ffffff; } + div.titlepage {text-align: center; page-break-before: always; + page-break-after: always; } + div.titlepage p {text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; font-weight: bold; + line-height: 1.5; margin-top: 3em; } + .ph2 { text-indent: 0em; font-weight: bold; font-size: x-large; margin: .75em auto; + page-break-before: always; } + .x-ebookmaker p.dropcap:first-letter { float: left; } + </style> + </head> + + <body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 79404 ***</div> + + +<div class='tnotes covernote'> + +<p class='c000'><strong>Transcriber’s Note:</strong></p> + +<p class='c000'>New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the public domain.</p> + +</div> + +<div class='c001'></div> +<main> +<div class='titlepage'> + +<div> + <h1 class='c002'><cite>The International Crisis in its Ethical and Psychological Aspects</cite></h1> +</div> + +<div class='nf-center-c0'> +<div class='nf-center c003'> + <div><span class='xlarge'>LECTURES</span></div> + <div class='c004'>DELIVERED IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH 1915</div> + <div class='c004'>BY</div> + <div class='c004'><span class='large'>ELEANOR M. SIDGWICK</span></div> + <div><span class='large'>GILBERT MURRAY</span></div> + <div><span class='large'>A. C. BRADLEY</span></div> + <div><span class='large'>L. P. JACKS</span></div> + <div><span class='large'>G. F. STOUT</span></div> + <div><span class='large'>B. BOSANQUET</span></div> + <div class='c004'>UNDER THE SCHEME FOR IMPERIAL STUDIES IN</div> + <div>THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON</div> + <div>AT</div> + <div>BEDFORD COLLEGE FOR WOMEN</div> + <div class='c004'>HUMPHREY MILFORD</div> + <div>OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS</div> + <div>LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK</div> + <div>TORONTO MELBOURNE BOMBAY</div> + <div>1915</div> + </div> +</div> + +</div> + +<div class='nf-center-c0'> +<div class='nf-center c003'> + <div><span class='small'>PRINTED IN ENGLAND</span></div> + <div><span class='small'>AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS</span></div> + </div> +</div> + +<div class='chapter'> + <h2 class='c005'>CONTENTS</h2> +</div> + +<table class='table0'> +<colgroup> +<col class='colwidth11'> +<col class='colwidth82'> +<col class='colwidth5'> +</colgroup> + <tr> + <td class='c006'></td> + <td class='c007'> </td> + <th class='c008'>PAGE</th> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c009' colspan='3'>ELEANOR M. SIDGWICK</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c006'>I.</td> + <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>The Morality of Strife in Relation to the War</span></td> + <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_1'>1</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c006'> </td> + <td class='c007'> </td> + <td class='c008'> </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c009' colspan='3'>GILBERT MURRAY</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c006'>II.</td> + <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>Herd Instinct and the War</span></td> + <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_22'>22</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c006'> </td> + <td class='c007'> </td> + <td class='c008'> </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c009' colspan='3'>A. C. BRADLEY</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c006'>III.</td> + <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>International Morality: the United States of Europe</span></td> + <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_46'>46</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c006'> </td> + <td class='c007'> </td> + <td class='c008'> </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c009' colspan='3'>L. P. JACKS</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c006'>IV.</td> + <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>The Changing Mind of a Nation at War</span></td> + <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_78'>78</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c006'> </td> + <td class='c007'> </td> + <td class='c008'> </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c009' colspan='3'>G. F. STOUT</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c006'>V.</td> + <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>War and Hatred</span></td> + <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_103'>103</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c006'> </td> + <td class='c007'> </td> + <td class='c008'> </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c009' colspan='3'>B. BOSANQUET</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class='c006'>VI.</td> + <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>Patriotism in the Perfect State</span></td> + <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_132'>132</a></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<div class='chapter'> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_1'>1</span> + <h2 class='c005'>I<br> <span class='c010'>THE MORALITY OF STRIFE IN RELATION TO THE WAR</span></h2> +</div> + +<div class='nf-center-c0'> +<div class='nf-center c003'> + <div><span class='sc'>By Eleanor M. Sidgwick</span></div> + </div> +</div> + +<p class='c011'>I must begin by confessing that I am so entirely +without such special knowledge on any subject +connected with ‘the International Crisis in its +Ethical and Psychological Aspects’ as would enable +me to speak about it with authority, or otherwise +than as an ordinary member of the general +public, that it was only after much hesitation that +I accepted the invitation to give this lecture. +I reflected, however, that in a crisis like this there +is a general desire to exchange views. We all have +views whether we are experts or not. We all have +our minds fixed on the crisis, and have all made +them up, with more or less definiteness, on such +questions as the rightness of the war and what our +attitude towards it and matters connected with it, +as a nation and as individuals, should be. But +with most of us, in this as in other matters about +which we have to judge, the more or less definiteness +is apt to be less. Or perhaps I should say +that definite conclusions are based on vague and +hazy premisses leading to confusion and contradiction +and doubt—vagueness and confusion which +can only be cleared away by resolute effort and +a determination to try to see things in their proper +<span class='pageno' id='Page_2'>2</span>proportion. In this process any of us who will +sincerely try to think out and express his own +views may help others whose minds are dwelling +on the same things, and this not so much by +compelling agreement as by offering points round +which the thoughts of each of us may crystallize. +I hope that anything I have to say will be received +in this spirit, and that I shall be regarded not as +expressing any original views or speaking from +any standpoint of superior knowledge, but merely +with the knowledge at the disposal of all of us +endeavouring to make out what we do think and +feel, and what we ought to think and feel, about +our duty as a nation and as individuals concerning +war and especially this present war.</p> + +<p class='c012'>But before I go on to the main subject I must +note that one reason given for inviting me to +lecture was that I am a woman and it was desired +that at least one lecture in the series should be +given by a woman. I do not know whether this +desire was prompted by any idea that the point +of view of women as such might be different from +that of men and that I might represent it and +speak as a woman. I should be very willing to do +so if I could, and indeed, if there is a difference, +my point of view must of course be the feminine +one. But I am quite unaware of any such difference, +and do not see how in a great national crisis +women can have a special point of view—the +whole thing is above differences of sex. In many +of the details of national affairs—chiefly practical +affairs of daily life and legislation affecting them—the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_3'>3</span>different experience of men and of women +necessarily places them at somewhat different points +of view, and the nation generally would, I think, +gain by having both represented. But in the +really big things, in things in which our action +here and now irrevocably affects the whole future +of our country, and (in the present case) the progress +in civilization of the whole world as well—in +a crisis, in short, like that through which we are +passing—it seems to me that if the men and women +of the country as such felt differently from each +other the country would be rotten at the core, and +would be doomed to defeat and decay.</p> + +<p class='c012'>I know there are people who assume that there +is a difference, and that according as one or other +sex managed the affairs of the world there would +be less or more war. But their arguments, so far +as I have seen them, seem to take a very superficial +view of the causes and consequences of great wars. +I may mention two of these arguments. The first +is expressed in a pamphlet written by a woman +which was sent to me the other day. She maintains +among other things that while the larger share +of the suffering which war produces falls on the +women, the honour and glory of fighting is exclusively +enjoyed by the men, who in her view are +thereby tempted to make wars which women would +prevent. The other argument I will mention, and +which is, I think, a commoner one, is almost in +contradiction to the first. It is, if I understand +it rightly, that as the labour and hardship and +personal risk of the actual fighting must be borne +<span class='pageno' id='Page_4'>4</span>by men, it is for the men—that is, I suppose, the +young men of fighting age—to decide whether the +fighting is worth while or not.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Neither of these considerations seems to have +much weight unless war be regarded as a kind of +game played between opposing armies—dangerous +no doubt, but still a game played for its own sake. +The first argument dwells on the danger the game +causes to the general public, such as might come, +for instance, from playing hockey in a crowded +street, the other on the risks to the players themselves; +but neither argument looks beyond the war +itself. But wars are hardly ever fought like games, +simply for their own sake. Even a Prussian militarist +party does not do that. It fights to gain +some supposed advantage for its country. Even if +the perfection of its war machine makes it long to +use it, it does not do so without some ulterior object +in view. And the ulterior object for which each +side fights, whether it be legitimate or illegitimate, +honest or dishonest, right or wrong, concerns the +whole country, not only the fighting men. It concerns +not only the men or only the women, not one +class or section or another class or section, but the +whole nation, and if it be a right cause and an +important cause the whole nation must be prepared +to suffer if need be and each man and each woman +to contribute what he or she can and to sacrifice +all that is required to secure success in the struggle. +That cannot be done in a grudging spirit. So far +as sacrifices can be measured, those who sacrifice +most must get their reward in being proud of it.</p> + +<p class='c012'><span class='pageno' id='Page_5'>5</span>Our young men are in an enviable position, for +it is they who have the chance of translating their +patriotism into action in the most direct way. It +is on their courage and endurance and self-sacrifice +in the field that success largely depends. It is on +them that the brunt of physical effort and physical +hardship first falls. And in fact of course war could +not be carried on without them. Our soldiers and +sailors have been splendid, as we always knew +they would be, and we may be proud of the way +our young men have under the voluntary service +system come forward and shown themselves willing +to suffer and die for their country.</p> + +<p class='c012'>But they are not the only people called on to +give active service of one kind or another, and they +are not the only people who suffer and will suffer. +This is so in our own country, and we see it yet more +in Belgium and the north of France. A war like this +is a horrible thing. It brings sorrow and suffering +to almost every home in the countries engaged in +it; it impoverishes victors and vanquished and +brings poverty and misery in its wake more widespread +than the belligerent countries. It no doubt +draws out some virtues—courage and valour, and, +more important still, ardent ‘self-sacrifice for duty +and the common good’—and we must not underrate +these. But it also tends to stimulate evil +feelings, brutality, bitterness, and hate, and to +increase national selfishness and mutual distrust +among nations.</p> + +<p class='c012'>War is an awful calamity, and it is no wonder +that some ask themselves whether all war is not +<span class='pageno' id='Page_6'>6</span>wrong. No wonder that many more think there +must be some way of securing perpetual peace. +But it is of no use discussing the general question +whether war is wrong. Any particular war is +usually wrong if we consider both sides together—that +is to say, it is usually due to wrongdoing on +one side or the other or both. But the question +that is important for each particular State is +whether it is itself right to fight. And whether on +any given occasion it is its duty to do so may often +be a question by no means easy to answer. I hope +that my opening words have not suggested to any +one that I intend to be so rash as to attempt any +general answer myself. To give such an answer +would require far more knowledge than I possess, +and far more space than I have at my disposal, and +in the end discussion would probably lead to the conclusion +that circumstances vary so much that rules +are scarcely possible, and each case must be decided +on its merits. Fortunately the present case is perfectly +clear, and barely admits of difference of +opinion, for we are fighting for freedom and independent +national existence, and we are fighting in +fulfilment of obligations deliberately undertaken.</p> + +<p class='c012'>There are, I take it, few people in the world who +would uncompromisingly advocate peace at any +price. Few would not grant that a State when +attacked must defend itself, just as in a country +with no settled government a man must defend +himself and his family from those who try to injure +him, whether they be men or wild beasts. Few +would deny (at least in any country but Germany) +<span class='pageno' id='Page_7'>7</span>that a State must fight in support of pledges +solemnly undertaken, like the guarantee by France, +Prussia, and England of Belgium’s neutrality. A +strong State cannot sit by with folded arms while +what it has guaranteed is violated by another, any +more than a man who has promised to help his +neighbour in case of attack can shut himself up in +his own house when the attack is made. It would +be admitted, in fact, by almost all, that there are +circumstances for nations, as there are for individuals, +when they must fight for their life and +liberty and that of others. And these circumstances +have arisen for us in the present case.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Is there, then, any possibility of preventing such +circumstances arising? Can we hope that war +will ever cease? I am perhaps a sanguine person, +but I do think we may hope that it will at any +rate greatly diminish in frequency. I am not, +however, sanguine about the possibility of devising +schemes for international government which shall +of themselves secure us from wars.</p> + +<p class='c012'>The first of such schemes is arbitration—and it +is a good scheme as far as it goes. Given an arbitration +court in which both sides feel confidence, +and given on both sides a desire to avoid quarrelling, +a good many disputes between States might be +settled by arbitration. And as a matter of fact +a good many have been so settled of recent years. +But arbitration is necessarily limited in its application. +Generally speaking, questions that can be +settled by arbitration are either questions like +those which in private life can be settled as civil +<span class='pageno' id='Page_8'>8</span>cases in the law courts—questions of fact, or +rights, or of interpretation of conventions, or of +damage done which is capable of being compensated, +and so forth. Or they must at least be +questions, like those involved in most trade disputes, +about which each side can put forward a +more or less plausible case, the one comparable +with the other.</p> + +<p class='c012'>But even when arbitration is possible, it is only +useful if both sides prefer peace to war, and cases +that would lend themselves to arbitration are perhaps +more often the occasion—the pretext—for +war than its real cause, at least where great countries +are concerned. However, we should none of us +deny that arbitration may help materially in maintaining +peace and should be used to the utmost.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Still more should every favourable opportunity +be made use of by States, while at peace, to remove +by negotiation causes of irritation and friction +which might lead to quarrels. Negotiation has +over arbitration the advantage that the nations +concerned are more likely through it to come to +understand one another, to realize each other’s +attitude and point of view; and are therefore +more likely to trust each other afterwards than if +they leave all that to the external arbitrator before +whom each merely advocates his own cause. We +in England have endeavoured for many years +past to promote both these things—arbitration +and negotiation about difficulties—to the utmost +of our ability. And France, too, has worked with +us of late, with the <em><span lang="fr">Entente Cordiale</span></em> as a result. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_9'>9</span>I wish we could say the same of Germany; but +Germany has for years managed to give the impression +of thinking it her interest to prevent the +sore places of the world—the danger spots—from +being healed, and even of working to create new +ones.</p> + +<p class='c012'>But it is clear that there are some causes of war +that neither arbitration nor negotiation can touch. +Neither can, for instance, prevent wars of pure +aggression. There is nothing to arbitrate about +when practically the whole contention of one side +is that Might makes Right and that therefore it +proposes to secure what it would like to have by +force. There is a proverb that it takes two to +make a quarrel. There is some truth in this—enough +to remind us, both in private life and in +international affairs, that if we say and do irritating +things we are responsible for the irritation produced. +But it is much more true that it takes two +to keep the peace. A nation that is determined +to fight <em>will</em> fight, and will have no difficulty in +finding, or making, the occasion for it. Nothing +can prevent it except the conviction that those +it desires to fight against are too strong to be +overcome.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Wanton aggression for the sake of gaining +power or territory or wealth is not the only cause +of war which cannot be arbitrated about. Another +cause which we have seen in operation within the +life of many of us is the conflict of incompatible +principles. The American Civil War was a war +for principles. And we may observe that there +<span class='pageno' id='Page_10'>10</span>was no militarism there—no perfecting of the war +machine in long preparation to attack or defend. +And, moreover, another of the plans for securing +European peace, a federation of States for the purpose, +failed here, for the antagonists were knit in +a federation far closer than any we can conceive +as taking place among the European nations.</p> + +<p class='c012'>We need not infer that such a federation in +Europe would be useless. It would be very difficult +to arrange, but if satisfactorily arranged it +might have some effect in preventing aggression, +just as the fact that England, France, Germany, and +Belgium were bound by treaty to preserve Belgian +neutrality may very well have saved Belgium from +attacks for all these years till now. But no such +federation could be a complete guarantee of peace; +for what would there be to prevent the federated +nations—even if we assume them all to be actuated +by good intentions—from disagreeing on questions +as to how their function of guardians of the peace +was in any particular case to be carried out, or +whether some particular action of some particular +State constituted a breach of the convention or +not? Would there not here be as much danger of +war as now? The only sanction behind the rules +of such a federation would be the threat of armed +intervention against an offending State, and if +there were disagreement so that the federation +were divided into parties, armed intervention would +mean a European war.</p> + +<p class='c012'>One method suggested for the prevention of war +is an agreed reduction of armaments. Of course +<span class='pageno' id='Page_11'>11</span>in this country we should all like reduction of +armaments, and so would our Allies. It would, to +say the least, save much wasteful expenditure, and +if we fight this war to a finish and win, we may +well hope that it will come about. But if it were +carried out all round I doubt if it would in itself +have much effect in promoting peace, for all would +still be in the same relative strength. And if it +were carried out only partially it would leave those +who refused to reduce, who would certainly include +those who wished to attack their neighbours, in +a specially advantageous position for doing so.</p> + +<p class='c012'>I have dwelt rather long on the difficulty, if not +impossibility, as it seems to me, of really securing +international peace by any scheme of international +arrangement. But though I do not think the ingenuity +of man has yet devised a way of doing +this, I am nevertheless hopeful that progress in the +direction of reduction of war is being made and +will continue. It is on general improvement in the +moral tone of the world that I build my hopes. +Progress is slow; but although of course this +shocking and surprising return of Germany to +mediaeval barbarism is rather disconcerting to +one’s optimism, the world still seems to me to be +a better world than it was; by which I mean that +it is tending on the whole to become less selfish +and more just and sympathetic, without on the +whole losing its energy and virility.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Then another hopeful sign is that, except in +Germany and in places like the Central American +Republics, there is in these days no chronic desire +<span class='pageno' id='Page_12'>12</span>to fight either in governments or in people. The +desire may be kindled under the influence of angry +passions, or in consequence of oppression, or by +other causes, but it is not there all the time, and in +most places it takes a good deal of kindling. Most +European nations have tasted the sweets of peace, +some of them know the horrors of war, and almost +all wish for opportunity to develop their internal +resources. Neither we nor any of our Allies in +this war had any desire for the war. Neither the +people nor the governments had. We have only +to read the diplomatic correspondence that preceded +it to feel sure of this. France, Russia, +Belgium, England, simply wanted to be let alone. +Serbia went great lengths for the sake of peace in +yielding to Austria’s demands. The desire for +revenge which the tearing from France of Alsace +and Lorraine left in the breasts of Frenchmen for +many years had practically died. They may have +hoped that a change in the position of Alsace might +somehow be brought about, but not by war. As +one of their writers, M. Paul Sabatier, said in 1911,<a id='r1'></a><a href='#f1' class='c013'><sup>[1]</sup></a></p> + +<blockquote>‘<span lang="fr">La France veut la paix avec l’Allemagne parce +qu’une guerre est une explosion de haine, et qu’elle +ne se sent pas plus de haine pour nos voisins de l’Est +que pour les autres. Elle sent sa solidarité avec eux.</span>’</blockquote> + +<p class='c012'>But he goes on:</p> + +<blockquote>‘<span lang="fr">Si le malheur voulait que ces sentiments ne +fussent pas compris, et qu’après nous avoir représentés +pendant plus de quarante ans comme ceux +qui menacent la paix de l’Europe, on nous attaquât, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_13'>13</span>oh! alors, nous nous élancerions avec l’enthousiasme +de citoyens qui défendent non seulement le +sol de leur patrie, mais qui portent une idée, qui +par leurs efforts, leur martyre s’il le faut, fera son +entrée dans le monde.</span>’</blockquote> + +<p class='c012'>There are many States in Europe which for many +decades have had no warlike impulses and have +only desired to be let alone to develop themselves +in their own way. If only, therefore, the moral +perversion of Germany could be cured, and some +perennial sources of friction, e.g. in the Balkan +States and parts of Austria-Hungary, removed, the +prospects of peace, if we are victorious in this war, +would for a long time be very good. It is, then, +these two things, the development of international +morality and the removal of causes of friction, +that those who desire a peaceful world must seek.</p> + +<p class='c012'>What, then, is wrong with Germany? How +comes prosperous Germany to bring the calamity +of war on us all?</p> + +<p class='c012'>Germany won too easily in her previous wars; +and since 1870 has suffered from what our American +cousins call swelled head. She applies to nations +an idea which has, I understand, proved attractive +to her in theoretical social psychology and in art—the +idea of a superman who in virtue of his strength, +physical and intellectual, is above all moral law, +and has the right as well as the power to work his +will on his fellow men. However much he may be +admired in theory, we may be sure that the superman, +if he appeared in real life and used his +strength so as to annoy his neighbours, would in +<span class='pageno' id='Page_14'>14</span>Germany, as in any other well-governed country +where slavery is not allowed, be dealt with by the +police. But when the idea is carried into international +relations, and it is deliberately maintained +by a powerful State that Might makes +Right, that a nation is a law to itself, and not only +has no duties to other nations but is bound to aim +solely at what it conceives to be its own interests +irrespective of all considerations of justice, veracity, +and good faith—when a State holds this it is +obvious that trouble is bound to come.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Leading Germans have taught this Neo-Machiavellianism +for many years. It is not only Treitschke +and Bernhardi, of whom we in England have +lately heard so much—it is not only they who have +preached it; it has been widespread in Germany +for half a century or more. Perhaps you will +allow me to read a passage which brings out this +fact from an essay on ‘Public Morality’, written +in 1897 by the late Henry Sidgwick<a id='r2'></a><a href='#f2' class='c013'><sup>[2]</sup></a>. The immorality +of Machiavellianism begins, he says:<br><br><blockquote>‘when the interest of a particular State is taken +as the ultimate and paramount end justifying the +employment of any means whatever to attain it, +whatever the consequences of such action may be +to the rest of the human race. And this “national +egoism” is, I think, the essence of the Neo-Machiavellianism, +which,—though views somewhat +similar have frequently found expression +from the sixteenth century onwards,—has been +especially prominent in the political thought of the +last forty years, and as I have said has found the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_15'>15</span>most unreserved and meditated expression in the +writings of Germans. I may give as an example +the statements of an able and moderate writer +who is by no means an admirer of Machiavelli. +“The State”, says Rümelin,<a id='r3'></a><a href='#f3' class='c013'><sup>[3]</sup></a> “is self-sufficient.” +“Self-regard is its appointed duty; the maintenance +and development of its own power and +well-being,—egoism, if you like to call this egoism,—is +the supreme principle of politics.” “The +State can only have regard to the interest of any +other State so far as this can be identified with its +own interest.” “Self-devotion is the principle +for the individual, self-assertion for the State.” +“The maintenance of the State justifies every +sacrifice, and is superior to every moral rule.”’</blockquote> + +<p class='c012'>The practical aim in affirming national egoism, +Mr. Sidgwick further says, of the writers to whom +he refers,<br><br><blockquote>‘is almost always expressly to emancipate the +public action of statesmen from the restraints of +private morality.’</blockquote> + +<p class='c012'>It is this want of international morality—the +absence of a moral code, not merely the failure to +live up to one—in one of the leading States of the +world which has more than anything else, and for +many years, endangered the peace of Europe and +has now plunged us into this ghastly war. It is +the theory held in Germany that envy, hatred, and +malice are not vices in a nation whatever they may +be in individuals; that justice, veracity, and good +<span class='pageno' id='Page_16'>16</span>faith are not virtues which a powerful nation +should foster in its relations with other nations, +however admirable they may be in individuals—it +is this theory which threatens to wreck western +civilization, and which has already shown us that +the progress we were fain to hope had been attained +in the humane conduct of war was largely illusory, +and that international treaties are, for nations +with Germany’s views, scraps of paper.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Till this immoral theory is abandoned there is +little hope of lasting peace. Have we, then, we +must ask, any reason for believing that it ever will +be abandoned by Germany? I may be optimistic, +but I think we have reason to hope it. I think we +may very reasonably look forward to Germany’s +conversion, at least if we win. In the first place, +the temptation to hold such a theory is much +greater when a nation feels itself to be stronger than +all its neighbours. As its might becomes to itself +more doubtful, the disadvantages of the theory +that Might makes Right become more obvious.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Then, secondly, I do not think that Germans in +general—whatever their statesmen may do—I do +not think that Germany as a nation holds the theory +quite single-heartedly now. I infer this from the +fact that Germany tries to explain away her actions. +If to attack is the right of the strong, why are +Germany’s statesmen concerned to make out, when +their case is so miserably poor, that she was not +the attacking party but the attacked? If strong +States are justified in ignoring treaty obligations +when they think it their interest to do so, why, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_17'>17</span>with such miserable arguments to produce, do they +try to convince a wondering world that Belgium +and France—not Germany—violated Belgium’s +neutrality? It may be said that these arguments +are addressed to neutral States, that Germany is +aware that she has not got international public +opinion with her, and is not strong enough—no one +is—to be willing to do without. But so far as I can +judge from the statements from German sources +I have seen, it is not only to impress outsiders +that these arguments are used, but to satisfy the +conscience of Germany’s own people.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Then, thirdly, there is probably an ideal element +mixed up in German motives which is not purely +selfish. All nations—including Germany—believe +in their own <em>Kultur</em>. We each believe in our +national way of looking at things, our national +methods of administration, our own way of advancing +civilization, our own plans of family life, and so +forth. I do not, of course, mean that we do not +regard them as capable of improvement—progressive +nations are always trying to improve them—but, +taken as a whole, we prefer our own way +of doing things to other peoples’. Germany, which +is, I think, deficient in sympathy and in the power +of understanding other people, probably goes +further and sincerely believes that her own +<em>Kultur</em> is necessarily the best for all the world, +and that all humanity would gain in the long +run by being Germanized—by force or otherwise. +I think it is probable, too, for all her apparent +substitution of Odin for the Christian God, that her +<span class='pageno' id='Page_18'>18</span>visions of conquest include visions of future world-wide +peace under her own domination. These +benevolent plans for the world are mistaken, but +the fact that they are benevolent at all, affords +a hope for something beyond national egoism.</p> + +<p class='c012'>There is yet another reason for expecting a change +in the views of the German people. Although they +are evidently very docile—very ready to think +what they are told to think—still the opinions +inculcated in them by their Government have been +supported by false or misleading information +conveyed largely through a manipulated press, +manipulated in the way so successfully developed +by Bismarck. But this is a dangerous expedient, +for, easy as it is for us all to see things as we wish +to see them, in the end the truth comes at least +partially to light. As a result of the war—if we win—the +scales are likely to fall from German eyes, the +German nation will see things that have been hidden +from it as a nation for many years, and with new +premisses new conclusions may be hoped for.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Do not let us, then, despair of Germany. On +the contrary, let us look forward to a day when +her many excellent qualities—her industry, her +thoroughness, her methodicalness, her discipline, +her patriotism—may under a freer and more independent +habit of thought, and a less egoistic +system of international morality, be an important +part of the forces making for human progress, not +only physically and intellectually, but morally.</p> + +<p class='c012'>This can only happen, of course, through German +public opinion, which is made up, as all public +<span class='pageno' id='Page_19'>19</span>opinion is, of individual opinions and feelings acting +and reacting on each other. And this brings me +to some things I want to say about our duties as +individuals in this crisis. The duty of patriotism, +of helping in every way we can the cause for which +we are fighting, I need not dwell on. We are fighting +for our life as a free nation, and the help of +every individual counts. The active help we can +render varies of course much—for some of us it is +necessarily almost non-existent. But what I may +call the spiritual help—the help through thought +and feeling, both as individuals and as contributing +to public opinion—which we can all render, is +important, and it is incumbent on all of us to see if +we are helping as we should.</p> + +<p class='c012'>There are two of the duties in this region on +which I should like to dwell a little. The first is +the duty of not hating the Germans. We may, +and as I think must, judge Germany as having +committed a terrible crime, but let us condemn +her as a judge would, impartially and without hate +or rancour; remembering, too, that if all who do +wrong are to be hated, few in this world would +escape. This war may be called a holy war if +there ever was one. We and our Allies are not +only fighting, as I have said, for our own national +existence, we are not only fighting for the rights +of small States, or for the liberty to develop each +in our own way. We are fighting not only for +these things, but against the principle of which +I have spoken—the principle that Might makes +Right, that there is no sense in the idea of justice +<span class='pageno' id='Page_20'>20</span>and good faith as between nations, and that envy +and hatred between them is natural and right. +Do not let us, then, indulge on our side in the very +vices we are condemning. How can we hope to +diminish hatred in the world if we allow ourselves +to feel it? How can we hope to have any influence +in restoring or increasing peace and good will if +we ourselves are full of hatred? Hatred is not, +except in a very limited way, a source of strength +but a source of weakness, and if we depend on +hatred to enable us to win we shall lose. We must +be absolutely firm. We must fight to the utmost +of our strength and as long as necessary in the +cause of justice. We must see that Germany pays +the debts she has incurred (they are very heavy +debts to Belgium and France and Poland and +Serbia). And we must help to make arrangements +which, by giving satisfaction so far as possible to +the inhabitants of all the provinces affected by +them, may give hope of a durable peace. But +desire for retaliation—that is, to inflict on Germany +the injuries she has inflicted on our Allies or on +ourselves; or the desire to humiliate Germany +because we think she would like to humiliate us, +or indeed for any other reason—these things are +unworthy of the spirit in which this war should be +fought on our side.</p> + +<p class='c012'>The second duty I want to insist on is that of +not being afraid. I do not of course mean that we +are to be reckless, or that we are to shut our eyes +to difficulties and dangers, or that we are to say +that things are well when they are not well. On +<span class='pageno' id='Page_21'>21</span>the contrary, we must face the task before us, keeping +steadily in view that it is a very difficult one +and needs every effort we can make, as a nation +and as individuals, to carry it through. But when +we have done and are continuing to do all that is +in our power to ensure success, then whatever we +have to bear (and remember so far we in England +have had nothing to bear like Belgium and France +and Poland and Serbia), whatever we have to face, +fear should have no place in our hearts. For fear +is weakness. The task before us is hard and we +may have anxious times to go through; as indeed +we have had already in this war, and as we had in +those other wars when England helped to save +Europe from the domination of ambitious nations +or individuals. But we are going to win now as we +did in the end; then and even those of us who can +contribute no active service can help to bring about +victory by courage and hope.</p> + +<div class='chapter'> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_22'>22</span> + <h2 class='c005'>II<br> <span class='c010'>HERD INSTINCT AND THE WAR</span></h2> +</div> + +<div class='nf-center-c0'> +<div class='nf-center c003'> + <div><span class='sc'>By Gilbert Murray</span></div> + </div> +</div> + +<p class='c011'>At the Natural History Museum, South Kensington, +close to the entrance, you can buy for +the sum of fourpence a most fascinating little book +on <cite>The Fossil Remains of Man</cite>. It is official and, +I presume, authoritative. And it tells how, in +very remote times, before there was any South +Kensington Museum, or any England, or, I believe, +in the strict sense, any Europe, there lived in +swampy forests in various parts of the world, +troops of little lemur-like tree-dwellers. They +were, I suppose, rather like small monkeys, but +much prettier. They had nice fur, good prehensile +tails, and effective teeth. Then there fell +upon them, or some of them, a momentous change, +a hypertrophy or over-development of one part +of the body. This kind of special increase, the +author tells us, seldom stops till it becomes excessive. +With the lemurs it was the brain which +began to grow. It grew and grew, both in size +and in complexity. The rest of the body suffered +in consequence. The fur became mangy and disappeared. +The prehensile tails wasted away. +The teeth ceased to be useful as weapons. And +in the end, Ladies and Gentlemen, after incalculable +ages, here we are!</p> + +<p class='c012'>Now these lemurs had certain instincts and +<span class='pageno' id='Page_23'>23</span>habits of life. Let us define our terms. By +an instinct I mean, following the exposition of +Dr. McDougall, an innate psycho-physical disposition +to notice objects of a certain class, to feel +about them in certain ways and to act correspondingly. +They would notice an enemy, hate him +and spit at him; notice an object that was good +to eat, desire it and eat it. They made love, they +protected their young, they defended their group +against other groups. And primitive man inherited, +with modifications, their instincts, and +we have similarly inherited his. Some of them +were generally desirable, and are consequently +admitted and encouraged; others were generally +undesirable, and have been habitually denied and +suppressed in our conscious life, only to break out in +dreams, in fits of insanity or passion, or more subtly +in self-deception. But, suppressed or unsuppressed, +man’s instincts form the normal motive force in his +life, though the direction of that force may from +time to time be controlled by conscious reason.</p> + +<p class='c011'>From this point of view, I wish to consider what +has happened to us in England since August 4, +1914. For that something has happened is quite +clear. There is an inward change, which some +people praise and some blame. There is a greater +seriousness in life, less complaining, less obvious +selfishness, and more hardihood. There is a universal +power of self-sacrifice whose existence we +never suspected before: on every side young men +are ready to go and face death for their country, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_24'>24</span>and parents are ready to let them go. There is +more brotherhood and more real democracy; +and at the same time, a quality of which we stood +in much need, far more discipline and obedience.</p> + +<p class='c012'>This makes a very strong case on the good side. +Yet, on the other, you will find generally that +reformers and idealists are disheartened. Friends +of peace, of women’s causes, of legal reform, of +the mitigation of cruelty to animals, are all +reduced to something like impotence. One hears +the statement that ‘there is no Christianity left’. +The very increase of power and devotion which +has occurred is directed, so some say, to the service +of evil. The same process has taken place +in Germany, and has there apparently reached +a higher degree of intensity. To leave aside its +more insane manifestations, a Danish friend sends +me the following quotation from a German religious +poet, much admired in evangelical circles: +‘We have become the nation of wrath.... We +accomplish the almighty will of God, and will +vengefully wreak the demands of His righteousness +on the godless, filled with sacred fury.... +We are bound together like a scourge of punishment +whose name is War. We flame like lightning. +Our wounds blossom like rose-gardens at +the gate of heaven. Thanks be to Thee, God +Almighty! Thy wrathful awakening does away +with our sins. As the iron in Thy hand we smite +all our enemies on the cheekbone.’ Another poet, +a clergyman, prays that the Germans may not +fall into the temptation of carrying out the judgements +<span class='pageno' id='Page_25'>25</span>of God’s wrath with too great mildness. +Now the state of mind which these poems reveal—and +I dare say they could be paralleled or nearly +paralleled in England—is compatible with great +self-sacrifice and heroism, but it is certainly not +what one would call wholesome.</p> + +<p class='c011'>In order to understand this change as a whole, +it is necessary to analyse it; and I would venture +to suggest that, in the main, it consists simply in +an immense stimulation of the Herd or Group +Instincts, though of course other instincts are also +involved. For the present, let us neither praise +nor blame, but simply analyse. At the end we +may have some conclusion to draw.</p> + +<p class='c011'>Man is by nature a gregarious animal and is +swayed by Herd Instincts, as a gregarious animal +must be; but of course they are greatly modified. +Outside mankind we find these instincts in various +grades of development. They show strongest in +ants and bees, with their communal life of utter +self-sacrifice, utter ruthlessness. I see that Professor +Julian Huxley, in his book on <cite>The Individual +in the Animal Kingdom</cite>, doubts whether among +ants the single ant or the whole ant-heap is really +the individual. I remember a traveller in northern +Australia narrating how he once saw a procession +of white ants making towards his camp, and, to +head them off, sprinkled across their line of advance +a train of bluestone, or sulphate of copper. And +instead of turning aside, each ant as he came up +<span class='pageno' id='Page_26'>26</span>threw himself on the horribly corrosive stuff and +devoured it till he fell dead; and presently the +main army marched on over a line consisting no +longer of bluestone, but of dead ants.</p> + +<p class='c012'>The instinct is less overpowering in cattle, +horses, wolves, &c. Certain wild cattle in South +Africa are taken by Galton as types of it. In +ordinary herd life they show no interest in each +other, much less any mutual affection. But if +one is taken out of the herd and put by himself +he pines, and when he is taken back to the herd +he shoves and nozzles to the very centre of it. +Wolves, again, will fight for their pack, but not +from mutual affection. If the pack is not +threatened they will readily fight and kill one +another. A dog in domesticated conditions is +especially interesting. He has been taken away +from his pack, but he retains his fundamental +habits. He barks to call his mates on every +emergency, even if barking frightens his prey +away. He sniffs at everything when he is out +walking, because he has wanted so long to smell +his way home to the lost pack. His real pack is +now artificial, grouped round his master. It will +take in his master’s friends and house-companions, +including quite possibly various animals such as +cats and rabbits. Meantime he rejects the strange +man and cheerfully kills the strange cat or rabbit. +His delightful friendliness and sympathy are of +course due to his herd habits. A cat has no herd. +She has always ‘walked alone’.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Now Man satisfies his Herd Instinct by many +<span class='pageno' id='Page_27'>27</span>groups, mainly artificial. Like the dog, he may +take in other animals. In ordinary life the group +of which he is most conscious is his social class, +especially if it is threatened in any way. Clergymen, +land-owners, teachers, coal-miners tend, as +the phrase is, to hang together. They have the +same material interests and the same habits of +life. Again, there may be local groups, counties +or villages; or groups dependent on ideas and +beliefs, a church, a party in politics, a clique in +art. But of all groups, far the strongest when +it is once roused is the Nation, and it is the +Nation that is roused now.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Normally men of science form a group, so do +theologians. But now they feel no longer as men +of science or theologians, they feel as Englishmen +or Germans. I see that the Archbishop of Munich +has expressed a doubt whether ‘any appreciable +number of Belgian priests’ have been ‘irregularly +killed’ by German soldiers. There is an +absence of class feeling about this remark which +few clergymen could attain in peace time. I see +that even the German Jesuits are sharply differing +from the rest of the Jesuits, an Order famous +throughout history for its extreme cohesion and +discipline. The only bodies that have at all +asserted themselves against the main current of +feeling in the various nations have been a few +isolated Intellectuals and some small groups of +International Socialists. It was easier for these +last, since with them Internationalism was not +only a principle but a habit, and besides they +<span class='pageno' id='Page_28'>28</span>were accustomed in ordinary life to be against +their own government and to differ from their +neighbours.</p> + +<p class='c012'>In the main, what has happened is very simple. +In all wild herds we find that the strength of this +instinct depends upon the need for it. As soon +as the Herd is in danger, the Herd Instinct flames +up in passion to defend it. The members of the +Herd first gather together, and then fight or fly. +This is what has happened to us. Our Herd is +in danger, and our natural Herd Instinct is aflame. +Let us notice certain different ways in which it +operates.</p> + +<p class='c012'>First, the Herd unites. Wolves who are quarrelling +cease when menaced by a common enemy. +Cattle and horses draw together. We in England +find ourselves a band of brothers; and the same +of course occurs in Germany. Indeed, it probably +occurs even more strongly there, since all +herd emotions there tend to be passionately +expressed and officially encouraged. Those who +are ordinarily separate have drawn together. +Canada, Australia, India, even Crown colonies +like Fiji, seem to be feeling a common emotion. +A year or so ago one might see in the advertisements +of employment in Canadian newspapers +the words ‘No English need apply’. You +would not find them now. Even the United +States have drawn close to us. Of course in +part this is due to the goodness of our cause, to +sympathy with the wrongs of Belgium, and the +like. Most neutrals are somewhat on our side. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_29'>29</span>But Herd Instinct is clearly present; or why do +the German-Americans side with the Germans?</p> + +<p class='c012'>Even those who are ordinarily at strife have +drawn together. Before the war our whole people +seemed at strife with itself, how far from natural +causes and how far from definite intrigue on the +part of Germany history will doubtless show. +We had the Militant Suffragists, we had an utterly +abnormal number of strikes and a great deal +of rebellion against Trade Union leaders, we had +trouble in India, terrific threats in Ireland. And, +on the whole, these various enemies have now +‘made it up’. Of course it was much harder for +them than for those who were merely separated +by distance. There were serious obstacles in the +way; habits of anger, habits of suspicion; often +the mere routine of party attack which comes +natural to small groups in strong opposition to +a government. As a journalist said to me: ‘I +mostly keep the truce all right; but sometimes, +when one is tired and has nothing particular to +say, one drops into abusing McKenna.’</p> + +<p class='c012'>The chief problem that arises in this general +drawing together is the problem of fidelity to the +Lesser Herd. Sometimes there is no clash between +the lesser and the greater. A man’s emotion +towards his family, his associates, his native district, +causes as a rule no clash. On the contrary, +it is usually kindled and strengthened by some +sort of analogy or some emotional infection. The +emotions of loyalty, of love to one’s neighbours +and surroundings, are all stirred; and the family +<span class='pageno' id='Page_30'>30</span>emotions in particular, being themselves very +ancient and deep-rooted in our instinctive nature, +have grown stronger together with those of the +Herd.</p> + +<p class='c012'>But often there is a clash. For instance, an +individual who has recently been in Germany and +made close friends there, will, out of loyalty to this +friendship, rebel against the current anti-German +passion, and so become ‘pro-German’. I mean +by ‘pro-German’, not one who wishes the Germans +to win—I know of none such—but one who +habitually interprets doubtful questions in a way +sympathetic to Germany. Again, there are a +few people who, on one ground or another, disapproved +of the declaration of war. They are +attacked and maligned: their friends naturally +stand by them. The whole group hits back +angrily and becomes, in the same sense, pro-German. +Then there are people who are influenced +by a peculiar form of pugnacity which +is often miscalled ‘love of justice.’ It is really +a habit of irritation at excess which finds vent +not in justice but in counter-excess. ‘So-and-so +is overpraised; for Heaven’s sake let us bring +him down a peg!’ ‘Every fool I meet is emotionalized +about the German treatment of Belgium; can +we not somehow show that no harm was done, or +that Belgium deserved it, or at least that it was +all the fault of some one the fools admire?’ +People of these types and others, some generous +and some perverse, form, both here and in Germany, +a protesting small Herd in reaction against the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_31'>31</span>great Herd. Thus the Herd draws together, +though lesser and protesting herds within it may +do the same.</p> + +<p class='c011'>Secondly, in time of danger the Individual subordinates +himself to the Herd. He ceases to make +claims upon it, he desires passionately to serve +it. He is miserable and unsatisfied if there is no +public work found for him. Discipline consequently +becomes easy and automatic. I know of +one case where a number of recruits in a certain +new regiment were drawn from a local trade +union of pugnacious traditions. One of them +was punished for something or other. The rest +instinctively proposed to strike, but even as they +proposed it found themselves in the grip of a +stronger instinct. They hesitated for an instant +and then obeyed orders. Again, I seem to have +noticed that there is in most people an active +desire to be ordered about. We like a drill-sergeant +to speak to us severely, much as you +speak to a dog which has not yet been naughty +but looks as if he meant to be. In ordinary life, +when a man has to obey and submit, he feels +small. The action is accompanied by what Mr. +McDougall calls ‘negative self-feeling’. But now, +it seems, we actually have a sense of pride when +we are ordered about. It makes us feel that we +are really serving.</p> + +<p class='c012'>We may notice here a curious side-movement, +a counter-action to the main stream making for +union. Such counter-actions are of course always +<span class='pageno' id='Page_32'>32</span>to be expected and need cause no surprise. Why +is it that, among these great steady forces of union +and mutual trust, we have sudden flashes of the +very opposite, especially of wild suspicions of the +Herd-leaders? I do not mean mere spy-mania. +That is simple enough, a morbid excess of a perfectly +natural feeling directed against the common +enemy. You desire passionately to capture a real +German spy; and, since you cannot find one, you +make up a bogus one and capture him. I mean +a similar mania, though much weaker and rarer, +directed against the Herd itself: the semi-insane +suspicions of Prince Louis of Battenberg, of Lord +Haldane, and of persons even more exalted. +Partly these impulses are merely the remains of +old quarrels in feeble minds. But partly they have +a real biological origin. For while, in ordinary +dangers, the safety of the future race depends on +the individuals serving and trusting their Herd, +there are moments when the only chance of safety +lies in their deserting and rejecting it. If once +the Herd is really conquered and in the power +of the enemy, then the cry must be ‘<em><span lang="fr">sauve qui +peut</span></em>’, and the panic which is generally disastrous +is now a protection. Thus these small cases of +panic, though practically unimportant, are psychologically +interesting and have their proper evolutional +explanation.</p> + +<p class='c012'>So far we have found, first, that the Herd draws +together, and next, that the individual subordinates +himself to the Herd. Thirdly, it seems +clear that this closer Herd union has an effect +<span class='pageno' id='Page_33'>33</span>upon the emotions, and a twofold effect. As all +readers of psychology know, Herd-union intensifies +all the emotions which are felt in common. +The effect is so strong and so striking that some +writers have treated it as a kind of mystery and +described it in language that is almost mythological. +But there does not seem to be anything +inexplicable in the matter. Emotion is infectious. +Each member of a Herd which is in the grasp +of some emotion is himself in a ‘suggestible’ +state and is also exerting ‘suggestion’ upon his +neighbours. They are all directly stimulating +his emotion and he theirs. And doubtless we +should also remember that, Herd-emotion being +itself a very old and deep-rooted animal affection, +its stimulation has probably a sympathetic +effect on all kinds of similar disturbances, such as +fear and anger and animal desires of various +sorts.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Furthermore, Herd-union often gives the suppressed +subconscious forces their chance of satisfaction. +Hence come the atrocities committed +by crowds. Some dormant desire, existing in +your nature but normally suppressed, is suddenly +encouraged by suggestion. You see a look in +your neighbour’s face, and he in yours; and in +a flash you both know what that look means. +You dare to own a feeling which, in your normal +condition, you would have strangled unborn. +Suppressed instinct calls to instinct across the +gulf of personality, and the infamous thing is half +done. For the Herd, besides tempting you, also +<span class='pageno' id='Page_34'>34</span>offers you a road of impunity. You can repudiate +responsibility afterwards. It is never exactly you +that really did the thing. It is the crowd that +did it, and the crowd has now ceased to exist. +M. Lenôtre, in his studies of the French Revolution, +has commented on the somewhat ghastly +fact that in moments of Herd-excitement people +on the verge of lunacy, people touched by persecution-mania, +by suspicion-mania, by actual +homicidal-mania, are apt to become leaders and +inspire confidence. The same phenomenon has +been noticed in certain revolutionary movements +in Russia.</p> + +<p class='c012'>In England, fortunately, there has been so far +almost no field for this kind of dangerous Herd-excitement. +There has been of course some +ferocity in speech, a comparatively harmless +safety-valve for bad feelings, and in some persons +a preferable alternative to apoplexy; but no +violent actions and, I think, among decent people, +extraordinarily little vindictiveness.</p> + +<p class='c012'>But Herd-union does not intensify all emotions. +It intensifies those which are felt in common, but +it actually deadens and shuts down those which +are only felt by the individual. The Herd is, as +a matter of fact, habitually callous toward the +sufferings of its individual members, and it infects +each member with its own callousness. To take +a trifling instance, a friend writes to me thus: +‘I discovered one day on a march that my boot +was hurting me; after an hour or so it became +obvious that my foot was bleeding. In ordinary +<span class='pageno' id='Page_35'>35</span>times I should have made a fuss and insisted on +sympathy, and certainly not gone on walking for +several miles. But as it was, moving in a steady +mass of people who were uninterested in my boots, +and I in theirs, I marched on without making any +remark or even feeling much.’</p> + +<p class='c012'>The ramifications of this Herd-callousness are +very curious and intricate. It acts even with +Fear, that most contagious of emotions. The +Herd deadens the fears of the individual as long +as they do not become real Herd-fears. Untrained +troops will advance in close masses. It needs +good troops to advance individually in open order. +The close masses are much more dangerous and +the open order less so, but in the close mass the +Herd is all round you, buttressing you and warming +you, and it deadens your private fear. It +may also be that there is here some hereditary +instinct at work, derived from a time when the +act of huddling together was a real protection, as +it is with sheep and cattle attacked by wolves.</p> + +<p class='c012'>If this Herd-callousness acts with fear, it acts +of course far more with scruples or pities. The +first scruple or ruth or criticism of the Herd must +rise in the breast of some individual. If, by good +luck, at the same moment it occurs to some dozen +other men, it has a chance of asserting itself. +Otherwise there is only the single unit standing +up, in his infinite weakness, against the great +Herd. The scruple is silenced and dies.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Of course in actual warfare this callousness is +immensely increased by the nature of the work +<span class='pageno' id='Page_36'>36</span>which the combatants are doing, and the immense +change in their habitual standard of expectation. +You cannot always be pitying people, or you would +never get on with your business. A friend of +mine, a clever and kindly man, told me how he +and his men, after a long spell in the trenches, +utterly tired and chilled and dropping with sleep, +had at last got into their billets—a sort of warm +cellar where they could just squeeze in. They +heard the scream of shrapnel sweeping the street +outside, and some soldiers of another regiment +and nationality ran up to the door begging for +admittance and shelter. With one voice, so my +friend said, he and his men growled at them and +slammed the door in their faces. It was their own +cellar, and these people were intruders. And they +shut them out into the shrapnel much as, in ordinary +circumstances, they would perhaps have felt +justified in shutting them out into the rain. The +strangest development of all is perhaps the disregard +of the Herd for its wounded, and the +readiness of the wounded themselves to be so +disregarded. Of course there are abundant cases +of the opposite sort, where individuals show the +utmost regard for the wounded, risk their lives +for them, and count no labour too hard for their +sake. But I have certainly met with well-authenticated +stories, notably of incidents in the +German and Japanese and Turkish armies, which +seem to take one back to some rather primitive +instincts. The true animal Herd hates its wounded +and kills them; cattle, wolves, porpoises, every +<span class='pageno' id='Page_37'>37</span>herd of gregarious animals does the same. Of +course it hates them. They not only tend to +hamper its movements, but they present vividly +to its eyes and senses the very thing that it most +loathes—its own blood and pain. And one finds +also curious instances where the wounded man +himself is so absorbed in the general Herd-emotion +that he insists, even angrily, on being left alone.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Thus under the influence of Herd-union common +emotions are intensified, individual emotions deadened.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Now thought, unlike emotion, is markedly individual +and personal. It is not infectious. It is +communicated by articulate language. The Herd +growls, cries, sobs, sometimes laughs; but it finds +speech very difficult. Again, thought is critical, +and the Herd wants unanimity, not criticism. +Consequently Herd-union deadens thought.</p> + +<p class='c012'>True, the herd-leader must think and plan, and +the Herd will obey him. In an organized army, +where discipline and organization powerfully +counteract many of the normal herd characteristics, +thought sits enthroned and directs the whole +mass. But it is a special kind of thought, under +central control and devoted simply to attaining +the purposes of the Herd. Other thought is +inhibited.</p> + +<p class='c012'>For instance, if the Herd is angry it is quite +simply angry with another Herd. This state of +mind is normal among savages and primitive +men. Some one belonging to a tribe over the +river has speared one of our cows, therefore we +<span class='pageno' id='Page_38'>38</span>catch some other person belonging to a different +tribe over the river and club him on the head. +Herd justice is satisfied. It only sees things in +Herds. ‘The Germans’ did so-and-so; therefore +punish ‘the Germans’: ‘the English’ did so-and-so; +therefore punish ‘the English’. Whenever +a Herd is offended by some action it is made +happy by punishing as dramatically as possible +several people who did not do it. Collective +anger, collective punishment, are always opposed +to Justice, because Justice only applies to individuals. +And again, the more angry a Herd is, +the less evidence it needs that there is due cause +for its anger. Accuse a man of some irregularity +in his accounts and the Herd will expect to have +the charge duly proven. But accuse him of +having drenched little girls in paraffin and set +fire to them, and the Herd will very likely tear +him—or some one else—to pieces at once without +further evidence.</p> + +<p class='c012'>By this process of killing out thought the Herd +sinks all its members in itself and assimilates them +to an average. And this average is in some +ways above but in most considerably below that +of the average man in normal life. For it is that +of the average man not thinking but merely +feeling. Only the leader has the function of +thinking; hence his enormous and uncanny +power.</p> + +<p class='c011'>Lastly, let us consider the effect of this Herd-union +on religion. At first sight the answer would +<span class='pageno' id='Page_39'>39</span>seem simple. Religion is a network of primitive +collective emotions, and any stimulus which works +upon such emotions is likely, by force of sympathy, +to rouse religious emotion at the same time. At +any rate some of the causes which have recently +roused Herd-emotion in Europe are just the +causes on which religious emotion is often said to +be based. Man has been made to feel the presence +of terrific forces over which he has no control. +He has been taught, crudely and violently, his +dependence on the unknown. On this line of +reasoning, the religious life of the world should be +greatly intensified. Yet there are serious considerations +leading to the opposite conclusion. A world +so mad and evil, however terrific, can hardly +seem like the mirror in which to see God. I +remember a dreadful incident in one of the +Consular reports of the Armenian massacres of +1895. At that time the universal dread and horror +throughout Armenia sent most people praying +day and night in the churches. But the report +tells of one woman who sat by the road and refused +to pray. ‘Do you not see what has happened?’ +she said. ‘God has gone mad. It is no use to +pray to Him.’ I have myself talked on different +days to two soldiers who gave vivid accounts of +the hideous proceedings of the war in Flanders +and of their own feelings of terror. Their accounts +agreed, but the conclusions they drew were different. +One man ended by saying with a sort of gasp: +‘It made you believe in God, I can tell you.’ The +other, a more thoughtful man, said: ‘It made you +<span class='pageno' id='Page_40'>40</span>doubt the existence of God.’ I think that the +effect of this year of history will be to discourage +the higher kind of religion and immensely strengthen +the lower.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Let me try to analyse this conclusion more +closely, and see what we mean in this context by +‘higher’ and ‘lower’. I hope that most of my +hearers will agree with me, or at least not disagree +violently, in assuming that the attributes which +a man ascribes to his God are conditioned by his +own mind, its limitations and its direction. I +could, if necessary, quote at least one Father of +the Church in support of such a view. Thus the +God whom a man worships is in some form a projection +of his own personality. The respective +Gods of a seventeenth-century Puritan, a Quaker, +an Arab, a South Sea Islander, will all differ +as their worshippers differ, and the human qualities +attributed to each will be projections of the +emotions of the worshipper. Thus the lower, +and often the more passionate, religion will be +directed towards a God who is a projection of +the worshipper’s own terrors and angers and +desires and selfishness. The higher religion weaves +its conception of God more out of its duties and +its aspirations. To one of those soldiers whom +I mentioned above God was evidently a Being +of pure terror, fitly mirrored by the action of +a host of high-explosive shells. To many people +in great oppression, again, God is almost an +incarnation of their desire for revenge: let those +who doubt it read the history of persecution. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_41'>41</span>To others, an incarnation of Self. Some of you +will have seen Mr. Dyson’s finely tragic cartoon +entitled ‘Alone with his God’. It represents +the Kaiser kneeling, a devout and fully armed +figure, before another Kaiser exactly the same in +dress and feature, but gigantic, august, enthroned +amid the incense of ruined towns and burning +churches, blindly staring and inexpressibly sad. +It is a picture to ponder on.</p> + +<p class='c012'>All these emotions, the self-worship, the hate, +the revenge, the terror, will be stimulated, and +so will the kind of religion that depends on them. +The higher religion, of which it is less easy to +speak, which expresses itself in the love of righteousness, +in the sense of one’s own imperfection, +in the aspiration after a better life and a world +with more love in it ... that sort of religion, I fear, +will chiefly come in reaction. It cannot be the +main flood. There is too much reflection in it, +too much inhibition. The main flood of Herd-emotion +will sweep over it for the time being, +but it will not die. There is a strange life in the +things of the spirit.</p> + +<p class='c011'>I suggested at the beginning of this very rough +and sketchy analysis that perhaps at the end we +might be able to pass some definite moral judgement +on the change which has taken place in us, +and say whether it is a good or a bad change. +But I fear that the suggestion has not been realized. +Herd-instinct in itself is neither good nor bad. +It is simply part of the stuff of life, an immense +<span class='pageno' id='Page_42'>42</span>store of vitality out of which both good and evil, +extreme good and extreme evil, can spring.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Thus it is impossible to say without qualification +that we ought to rejoice in this stimulation of +our herd-instincts or that we ought rigorously +to master and reject it. Neither alternative is +sufficient. We must do this and not leave the +other undone. We must accept gladly the +quickened pulse, the new strength and courage, +the sense of brotherhood, the spirit of discipline +and self-sacrifice. All these things make life +a finer thing. It is nothing against a particular +emotion that mankind shares it with the ape +and the tiger. Gorillas are famous for their +family life, and tigresses are, up to their lights, +exemplary mothers. As regards herd-feeling in +particular, we should realize that even in its most +unthinking forms it generally makes a man kinder +and more trustworthy towards his immediate +neighbours and daily associates; the evil side of +it comes into play much more rarely, since it +is directed against the far-off alien herd which is +seldom met or seen. And lastly, we should remember +one piece of certain knowledge which is both +immensely important and very difficult to apply: +that thwarted instincts act like poison in human +nature, and a normal and temperate satisfaction +of instinct is what keeps it sweet and sane. At +the present time, for instance, the people whose +minds have turned sour and vicious are almost +always those who can neither fight nor serve. +The fighters and doctors and nurses and public +<span class='pageno' id='Page_43'>43</span>servants—as a rule their herd-desire is satisfied, +and they do their work with fervour and without +bitterness.</p> + +<p class='c011'>Yet after all we are thinking beings. If we +acknowledge our instincts we need not worship +them. Thinking itself is both an instinct and +a form of public service, and it is our business to +watch ourselves. We must see to it that this fresh +force which we feel within us is not wrongly +directed, and that the higher and gentler elements +of life are not swamped by this new strong wine. +Millions of men throughout Europe are, without +stint or question, offering all that is in them to +the service of their countries and the command of +their leaders. We must see, as far as lies in our +power, that we do not abuse that heroic blindness. +And, among us who remain at home, we must +see as far as possible that the normal texture of +life is not lowered or coarsened.</p> + +<p class='c012'>There has been current in England of recent +years a reaction against reason, an avowed worship +of instinct and tradition and even prejudice. +The doctrines of this reaction are in themselves +fascinating, and they have been preached by +fascinating writers. The way of instinct and old +habit is so full of ease, so facile and strong and +untroubled. Look at the faces of men who are +wrapped up in some natural and instinctive +purpose. Look at a dog chasing his prey, a lover +pursuing his beloved, a band of vigorous men +advancing to battle, a crowd of friends drinking +<span class='pageno' id='Page_44'>44</span>and laughing. That shows us, say the writers +aforesaid, what life can be and what it ought to be. +‘Let us not think and question,’ they say. ‘Let +us be healthy and direct, and not fret against the +main current of instinctive feeling and tradition.’</p> + +<p class='c012'>In matters of art such a habit of mind may be +valuable; in matters of truth or of conduct it is, +I believe, as disastrous as it is alluring. True, +the way of instinct is pleasant. I happened once +to be waiting at a railway station on a summer +afternoon. There were several railwaymen about, +rather wearily engaged on work of one sort or +another, when suddenly something happened +which made them look alert and cheerful and put +a kindly smile on their faces. One of them had +seen some small animal—I think, a rat—and a little +crowd of them ran blithely and pelted it to death. +One would have seen the same kindly and happy +smile, the same healthy vigour, in the people who +amid other circumstances let loose their hunting +instincts on runaway slaves or heretics or Jews. +And the man among them who should feel a qualm, +who should check himself and try to think whether +such hunting was really a pleasant and praiseworthy +action, would, I have little doubt, have +looked guilty and uneasy and tongue-tied. His +face would have condemned him. ‘Why should +he trouble himself with thinking and criticizing?’ +people may say. ‘Why not enjoy himself with +his mates! Thought is just as likely to lead you +wrong as feeling is.’</p> + +<p class='c012'>The answer of mankind to such pleadings +<span class='pageno' id='Page_45'>45</span>should be firm and clear. Human reason is very +far from infallible, but the only remedy for bad +thinking is to think better. The question was +really settled for us, thousands and thousands of +years ago, by those little lemurs in the marshy +forests. They took not the path of ease but the +path of hard brain-work, and we their children +must go on with it. That is the way of life and +the bettering of life, to think and labour and build +up; not to glide with the current. We of the +human race have our work in the scheme of +things; and to do our work we must use all our +powers, especially our greatest powers, those of +thinking and judging. And even if we deliberately +set our faces in the other direction, if we yield +to the stream of instinct and let scruples and +doubts and inhibitions be swept away, we shall +not really find life easier. At least not for long. +For the powers to which we yield will only demand +more and more.</p> + +<p class='c012'>There is one character in Shakespeare, who is +often taken as a type—a very unflattering type, +I admit—of the follower of the mere instincts; +who feels the release, the joy, the sense of revelation +which they bring, and thinks that they will lead +him to glory. And I suspect that some modern +adorers of instinct as against reason will in the +end awake to disillusion like that of Caliban:</p> + +<div class='lg-container-b c014'> + <div class='linegroup'> + <div class='group'> + <div class='line in12'>What a thrice-double ass</div> + <div class='line'>Was I, to take this drunkard for a God,</div> + <div class='line'>And worship this dull fool!</div> + </div> + </div> +</div> + +<div class='chapter'> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_46'>46</span> + <h2 class='c005'>III<br> <span class='c010'>INTERNATIONAL MORALITY:</span><br> <span class='c015'>THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE</span></h2> +</div> + +<div class='nf-center-c0'> +<div class='nf-center c003'> + <div><span class='sc'>By A. C. Bradley</span></div> + </div> +</div> + +<p class='c011'>When I was invited to give a lecture in a series +dealing with the present crisis in its ethical and +philosophical aspects, I had been endeavouring to +clear my own mind as to the basis of international +morality, and also as to some proposals aimed at +the diminution of war; and I thought that this +endeavour might perhaps be of some use to others.<a id='r4'></a><a href='#f4' class='c013'><sup>[4]</sup></a> +I say the ‘basis’ of international morality; not +the question what in particular the duties of states +to one another are, but the question whether states +are moral agents at all, and, if so, in what sense. +This question runs back into that of the nature +of the state, and cannot help being more or less +a philosophical one; but I aim only at the outline +of an answer and at being intelligible rather than +precisely accurate; and, the subject being large, +I intend, without reference to opposing views, +merely to expound, at any rate at first, a view +that is mine only in the sense that long since it +got into my head out of other peoples’, and to +expound it without adding to every sentence the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_47'>47</span>words ‘so far as I can see’. Perhaps you will +be kind enough to supply them.</p> + +<p class='c012'>My second subject is not itself philosophical. +Judgement on proposals for diminishing war +requires good sense, some knowledge of the past +and present, and some capacity for faith and +hope about the future. These things are not +philosophy; and yet one of them, good sense, +might be called philosophy pretending not to +know herself; and, in any case, reflection on the +nature of the state may help one in estimating +concrete schemes which cannot succeed unless +they correspond fairly well with that nature.</p> + +<p class='c012'>I must begin with some prefatory explanations +suggested by the phrase just used. First, the +nature of the state appears, of course, in a variety +of forms; and a city-state such as Athens is very +unlike a nation-state such as France, and both are +unlike a state, such as Austria-Hungary, which +is not based on nationality, or, again, a federal +union such as the United States of America. +But, to save time, I propose to ignore these +differences and to take a national state as typical. +Next, the full nature of the state is realized but +partially in any individual state, and very feebly +in some; and therefore, when I say that the +state is or does this or that, you may truly make +the comment that <em>our</em> state, or any other, is or +does this in a very poor degree. And, lastly, +I must point to what seems at first a curious fact. +A state rests on, and, in a sense, only exists in, +the minds and wills of its members, so that, if +<span class='pageno' id='Page_48'>48</span>mind and will in all Frenchmen could suddenly +vanish, the French state would do so too. And, +further, the improvement of this state depends +on the ideas of its members, and their will to +make their ideas good. And yet what we call the +‘nature’ of the state does not depend on their +thinking this or that, and if they think and will +what conflicts with that nature they will not +succeed. They will succeed only by developing +further so much of that nature as is already +developed in France or elsewhere. On the other +hand, there can be no more fatal error than +simply to identify the nature of the state with +any development of it that has hitherto appeared. +It only lives in realizing capacities still unfolded, +and a state that does not advance goes back +and, apart from any external violence, may +even die.</p> + +<p class='c012'>If now we ask what the state is, we may say +that it is the nation considered as an organized +whole or individual. You have some millions of +people, inhabiting a definite piece or pieces of +the earth, and, for the most part, so united by +blood, language, customs, traditions, and history, +that they have a special character and so can +more fully understand and count on one another, +and can live together more easily and happily, +than any chance collection of human beings could. +Further, they are not a mere collection or aggregate, +but form an organized whole, performing a multitude +of different functions, which should, and more +or less do, so complement and play into one +<span class='pageno' id='Page_49'>49</span>another that they make a common life and produce +a common good—a good shared by the members in +degrees necessarily different, though not, one hopes, +of necessity so very different as they everywhere +now are. Finally (for so far we have not, strictly +speaking, a state) the common life, mind, or will +expresses itself formally in laws binding on all +the members, and in acts explicitly done on +behalf of the whole and in its name. It is in +these laws, and still more in these acts, that the +whole appears most plainly as individual or +a single agent, over against its members taken +severally, and over against other states. Hence we +often identify the state with the particular organ +through which it acts in this way, asking, for +example, indifferently whether the state, or +whether government, ought to own the railways. +And this usage, though it leads to confusion if +we forget that the state is the whole, points to +the fact that it does not act <em>as</em> the state except +through the organ called (in a wide sense) the +government.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Is the state then a moral agent? It can hardly +be so with reference to other states, unless it is +so with reference to itself; so that we may safely +consider it at first as if it stood alone in the world.</p> + +<p class='c012'>What is the end or object for which the state +exists—its reason to be? Aristotle, after his +manner, replied in two words, ‘Good life’. We may +expand a little and say ‘The best possible life +of its members’, or ‘The fullest possible development +in them of the forces and faculties of man’ +<span class='pageno' id='Page_50'>50</span>(a Mazzinian formula), or ‘To make of human +nature in them all that it has in it to become’ +(which is more like Green’s language). These are +various ways of expressing what is substantially +the same idea. Suppose it true; then what has +<em>morality</em> to do with this end, the best life or the +fullest realization of human capacities?</p> + +<p class='c012'>Morality, or moral goodness, is, in the first +place, a large part of this best life. To be self-controlled +in regard to your desires and fears, to +be just and generous and the like; to do your +part as well as you can in the common life, in +your functions, say, as a son, a neighbour, a friend, +a carpenter, or a poet; and to do this, not merely +because you happen to like it or because it pays +you, but because it is right and good to do it:—something +like this is to be morally good. And +to be so is not a mere means to an end beyond it, +but a great <em>part</em> of the end, or best life, or realization +of human nature.</p> + +<p class='c012'>It is not, however, the whole. To discover or +re-discover truth, for example, and to make or +re-make beauty, are certainly elements in the +best life; and truth and beauty are not morality, +nor yet mere means to it; they have an intrinsic +value of their own. Moral goodness, therefore, +though a large part of the best life, is not the whole. +No: but it is the condition, the <em>sine qua non</em>, of +these other parts. To discover truth, for example, is +not a mere matter of natural gifts—it requires will, +and a moral will. The investigator must undergo +fatigue, renounce many pleasant things, sacrifice +<span class='pageno' id='Page_51'>51</span>his pre-conceived ideas and his secret wish to +reach a particular conclusion; and all this is +morality, whether in other respects he is moral +or not. And these are only examples. The same +thing holds good over the whole of life, wherever +there is action, inward or outward.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Thus it appears, first, that morality is a large part +of the good life; and, secondly, that all those +activities which in their special natures are not +moral still fall within the moral sphere so far as +will and character are concerned in them; and +they cannot help being so concerned. But, if so, +the end of the state, the best life, is a moral end, +and the state a moral agent.</p> + +<p class='c012'>I said I would ignore objections; but there is +an objection to this view so obvious and so +dangerous that I dare not pass it by. ‘If the state +had a moral end,’ it may be said, ‘it would not +merely protect the life and property of the citizen, +and then leave him free to live well or ill at his +pleasure: it would enforce morality, or at any +rate promote it by rewards and punishments. +But it neither does this, nor do most of us think +that it ought.’ Now even in England the state +does much more than this objection supposes; but, +leaving that alone, we may answer thus. The +state, though its end is moral, does not enforce +morality because it cannot. It can enforce actions +<em>outwardly</em> the same as moral actions; but to force +a man to do them morally, to do them not because +he must but because he approves them or thinks +them his duty, is beyond the power, not only of +<span class='pageno' id='Page_52'>52</span>the state, but of the whole universe. Moral +action, like immoral, is free action; and to talk +of enforcing it is to talk of a square circle. And, +in the second place, the reason why, on the whole, +the state abstains, so far as possible, from enforcing +or promoting actions outwardly like moral ones, is +itself a moral reason. To force or bribe a man to +do what he ought to do freely and morally, tends +in some degree to interfere with his doing it +freely and morally. The state cannot help taking +this risk to some extent; for it must maintain +the necessary pre-requisites of good life, e. g. +security of life and property. But it limits its +compulsive action, not in order that people may +freely live as badly as they please, but in order +that they may freely live as well as they can.<a id='r5'></a><a href='#f5' class='c013'><sup>[5]</sup></a></p> + +<p class='c012'>We have now reached the conclusion that, as +regards itself or (it is the same thing) its members +in their organic unity, the state is a moral agent. +But is it one in the further sense that it has duties +to other states, such duties that these other states +have a moral right to their performance? Almost +all of us, probably, will be disposed to answer Yes; +<span class='pageno' id='Page_53'>53</span>yet, as soon as we begin to think about the question, +we meet with facts and considerations that perplex +us. Not three centuries ago a great philosopher +could say that states are by nature enemies.<a id='r6'></a><a href='#f6' class='c013'><sup>[6]</sup></a> +Bacon is often called our great English moralist; +and Bacon, writing of the dealings of kings with +their neighbours, tells us that only one general +rule can be given in the matter, but ‘one that ever +holdeth; which is, that Princes do keep due +sentinel that none of their neighbours do overgrow +so ... as they become more able to annoy them +than they were’.<a id='r7'></a><a href='#f7' class='c013'><sup>[7]</sup></a> We may reassure ourselves by +remembering that Bacon lived a long time ago +and had studied Machiavelli to some purpose; yet +we, in our own day, are not surprised if a subject +of dispute between other nations is dismissed by +our Government in the phrase, ‘It does not affect +British interests’, a phrase which may <em>seem</em> to +imply that the duty of a state is simply and solely +to itself. What it does imply, a moment’s thought +will show us, is only that the state’s primary duty +is that; and this inoffensive implication we may +be ready to accept. And yet if a man saw two +other men quarrelling in the street in a manner +that threatened bloodshed, we should hardly +think it moral in him to pass on with the remark, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_54'>54</span>‘It does not affect my interests’; we should +think he ought at any rate to look for a policeman. +This difficulty, again, we may remove by the just +reflection that no policeman can be found for +states, and in general that we cannot safely argue +from the duties of a citizen to those of a nation. +But then where will this reflection lead us? +Citizens, perhaps we shall say, have duties to one +another and to the state, and the state has duties +to them, because they are members of this one +community and share its one life, will, and good; +but this moral community is the largest and highest +that exists in the visible or actual world, what we +call mankind being evidently not an organized +whole but a mere scattered aggregate. Thus we +may feel driven after all to conclude that the state +is its own absolute end and has no duty except +to itself. And if this conclusion still troubles us, +we may consider that, at any rate, the state has +a duty to itself in respect of its behaviour to other +states; and we may even suspect that we are +vexing ourselves with a mere question of words, +since in any case a moral agent cannot have +a duty to another which is not also a duty to +itself.</p> + +<p class='c012'>However this may be, we shall find it worth +while to dwell for a minute on the idea that the +state has duties only to itself. If this idea were +fully carried out it would lead, I believe, to just +the same result as the view that states have +duties to each other. For, as we have seen, the +end of the state, and therefore the state’s own +<span class='pageno' id='Page_55'>55</span>‘interest’,<a id='r8'></a><a href='#f8' class='c013'><sup>[8]</sup></a> is nothing short of the best possible +life of its members. Its independence is necessary +to that life; power is necessary to it; wealth is +necessary; even high spirit and a certain pride +may be so; and times may come when a resolute +assertion of its rights even by war is necessary. +But the best possible life, including, permanently +or on occasion, all these things, is much wider +than any or all of them. None of them has value +apart from it. Those of them which, like wealth +and power, exist only in this or that degree, are +of value only in the degree in which they really +contribute to the best life, and in that life the goods +of the soul rank, in value, first. An action of the +state, therefore, which increases its wealth or +power to the detriment of the character of its +citizens cannot be in its interest, but is, on the +contrary, a violation of its duty to itself. And so +is any breach of promise to another state, any +intentional injury to another, or any war upon +another, which is inconsistent with that best life +of its own citizens which is their one and only +absolute interest. Hence we may say that a state +can do no wrong to another which is not equally, +or even more, a wrong to itself; that, if it +rightly understands its duty to itself, it need +consider nothing else; and that patriotism, in +the true and complete meaning of the word, is +<span class='pageno' id='Page_56'>56</span>the final and all-inclusive virtue. And if this view +of the matter could really become the inspiration +of a nation’s life, it would certainly have great +advantages. It would make the nation realize that, +next to the primary duty of maintaining the pre-requisites +of its life, its main business is not to +improve others—least of all by conquest—but to +improve itself; and that to be grasping, inconsiderate, +irritable, and meddlesome is no part of +the best life. Or imagine for a moment that, +when peace returns to England, we could retain +undiminished that sense of unity and that self-devotion +which have been evoked by war, and +could use them wisely in all their strength, if +only for ten years, to make England, morally and +socially, all that it might be. Why, it might +become, for itself, almost what Shakespeare called +it, a ‘second Eden’, and, for others, a light to +lighten the nations.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Thus the doctrine that a state has duties only +to itself, if taken in its full sense, is far from being +selfish or degrading. But then it is fatally easy +to take it in its more obvious and its untrue sense; +and we know too well how ideas, innocent and +just in themselves, may be twisted into shapes +that affront any unsophisticated conscience. Besides, +this formula, even rightly construed, does +not appear to suffice. To say that the so-called +duty of a state to another is simply its duty to +itself in respect of that other, would be satisfactory +if that other were a tree or a lion; because my +having a duty to another implies, in strictness, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_57'>57</span>that this other has or may have a duty to me; +and a tree or a lion, not being a rational agent, is +incapable of duty, and, for the same reason, +cannot be a member of a moral community. But +the other state, like my own, is a rational being. +The two have the same nature and the same end, +the best possible life. That is common to them; +and though it is by no means enough to make +them members of an actual community in which +the good of one is, in some degree, the good of +another and of all, it surely is enough to give them, +so far as they come in contact, and apart from +obligations arising out of treaties between them, +duties to one another and moral rights against +one another. Indeed this seems to hold of all +human beings, whether they belong to states or +to lower forms of society. Slavery, for example, +is now among civilized peoples universally admitted +to be wrong, and states forbid their +citizens to practise it. To whom then is it a wrong? +To the enslaver himself, no doubt, but surely also +to the slave. He—a negro, perhaps—is, like the +enslaver, a rational being with a capacity for a best +life. He proves it by his membership in a tribe, +in which he has what, in effect, are rights and +duties. His tribal morality differs from our civic +morality; but what of that? It is enough to give +him a claim against us to be left free to live as +well as he can, and enough to make it our duty to +him, if not to aid him, at least to leave him free.<a id='r9'></a><a href='#f9' class='c013'><sup>[9]</sup></a></p> + +<p class='c012'><span class='pageno' id='Page_58'>58</span>The duties which, on this showing, all men have +to one another may now be few and elementary; +and this may be said even of the duties of states +to one another (over and above the unquestionable +obligations arising from their treaties). But these +duties are bound to grow in number and complexity, +and the day perhaps may come when ‘mankind’ +or ‘humanity’ will be no mere scattered aggregate, +but an all-embracing organized community +of members—if not states, still corporate bodies +of some kind—united in pursuit of a common end, +the best life of man. This life would be different +in each body, a harmony, not a monotone; and +the difference in each would be its special contribution +to the whole. The members of each would +still be more closely united with one another than +with those of other bodies, and have duties to +their own body that they had not to others; and +these bodies, being human, could hardly fail +sometimes to disagree. But none of them would +dream of regarding itself as its sole or absolute +end, and one may surely believe that they would +not need to settle their differences by war. This +community, at the best, must be far distant; but +to keep it in view and, so far as possible, to feel +and act as though it were already here, is, even in +warring, to live inwardly in peace with your +enemy, and, it may be, to lessen the distance by +an hour or even a day.<a id='r10'></a><a href='#f10' class='c013'><sup>[10]</sup></a> And at least the pre-requisite +<span class='pageno' id='Page_59'>59</span>of such a community—I mean the closer +contact of mankind—is undeniably and rapidly +being realized. Our own country makes itself +a huge far-extending Empire. In the East Japan +starts into sudden greatness. Africa is parcelled +out among the states of Europe. The states of +the world are bound together more and more by +trade. There is another side, no doubt, to all these +changes. In our Empire-making we did things we +cannot justify, and the Empire made becomes an +object of envy and a cause of war. The rise of +Japan at once brings war in the East, and alarm +and enmity in the Western hemisphere. The +parcelling of Africa means the horrors of the +Congo; and states bound together by trade fight +one another with tariffs. Nevertheless these +changes do visibly tend in one direction. Is it +vain to hope that they move invisibly to one goal, +moving there neither by accident nor mainly by +the conscious purpose of men?</p> + +<p class='c012'>Meanwhile already we have in Europe a number +of states, connected by almost perpetual contact, +sharing to some extent a single type of civilization +and morality, yet possessed of such distinct +characters, and developing this type in such +individual forms, that each of them brings to the +common stock a contribution which no other can +bring and which it is essential to preserve. What +further duties they have to one another beyond +that contribution I cannot discuss: I have to +dwell on a different point. That these duties +may be more extensive and positive than they are +<span class='pageno' id='Page_60'>60</span>now generally recognized to be, one can well +imagine; but I find it difficult to imagine that +the primary and main duty of a state to other +states can cease to be the contribution of its own +best life. Yet to many minds this appears a selfish +view. Openly or unconsciously they seem to +demand that states should behave to one another +like good men, or even like friends, or even like +brothers. And the flagrant contradiction between +such demands and the actual behaviour of states +causes not only painful disappointment but an +injurious dismay. Yet what is in fault here, +perhaps, is not only, or even mainly, the behaviour +of states, but something unreasonable in the +demand.</p> + +<p class='c012'>I have not read General Bernhardi’s book since +it first appeared, but I understand he says in it +that the morality of a state cannot be the same as +that of an individual. This assertion, if one may +judge from a poem by Mr. Noyes and an article in +one of our best weekly papers, is considered almost +diabolical; and very likely the author draws from +it false and immoral conclusions—one would +expect him to. But surely the statement itself is +perfectly sound. All moralities, of course, are +the same, in the sense that they <em>are</em> morality, or +a doing of duty: but what acts in particular are +the duties of a moral agent must depend on the +nature of the agent and the position he occupies. +The duty of my brother to help me, if need be, with +his money, or to tell me that I am disgracing the +family, does not therefore belong to every one here +<span class='pageno' id='Page_61'>61</span>present. It may be of use to point out some +differences between a state and an individual, +which prevent them from having the same duties +and even account for their sometimes doing what +two reasonable men, practically speaking, never +do—fighting one another.</p> + +<p class='c012'>If A and B, two reasonable Englishmen, cannot +agree in interpreting their contract, they do not +fall to blows, they go to arbitration or a court +of law. If A vilifies B, the latter, if he thinks it +of importance, can take A into court. If A tries +to pick B’s pocket or assaults him, B may indeed +use such force as is immediately necessary to +protect his person or property, but no more; it +is the business of the law to protect him and to +punish A. This power, the law, has three obvious +characteristics. It purports to be, and in a good +state is, the expression of that reason and right +will which is common to A and B, as distinguished +from their personal feelings and passions. It is +perfectly impartial in regard to A and B. And, +lastly, it is a power, against which they are powerless. +Whatever they may think of its decision, +it will enforce it.</p> + +<p class='c012'>But if A and B are states, how do they stand? If +they differ in interpreting their treaty, or in fixing +what sum A should pay to B for an unintentional +injury, they, like citizens, can go, in one way or +another, to arbitration. The arbiter, it is true, +has no power to enforce his decision, but that need +not matter much, since A and B would hardly +have gone to him if they did not mean to abide +<span class='pageno' id='Page_62'>62</span>by it. This, however, is a narrow field. When the +question concerns an assault of A on B, or what +they call their vital interests or even their honour +(which is not merely their private feeling but their +repute and weight in the world), where will they find +an embodied reason with its perfect impartiality? +Seldom, if ever, in other states, either severally +or combined, when each of these others has its +likes and dislikes to A and B, and vital interests +of its own, connected positively or negatively with +theirs. And even if this problem were surmounted +and the impartial arbiter found, his decision, so +far from having overwhelming force behind it, +has or may have none at all except that of public +opinion. Of course it does not follow that B’s duty +must be war, but it does follow that you cannot +find his duty by examining the duties of an +individual.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Take a second difference. You, an individual +citizen, have interests in a special sense your own. +But you may well think it your duty to injure +some of them; to be poor when you might be +well off; to leave many of your capacities undeveloped +that you may do good through the disproportionate +growth of one or two; even to +weaken your health and shorten your life for some +worthy object; nay, if need be, to risk it or throw +it away for the life of another. Asked to justify +your conduct, you might answer perhaps that +your life is but one of forty million English lives, +that what you lose others gain, and that there are +plenty to take your place. But England, your +<span class='pageno' id='Page_63'>63</span>state, <em>is</em> forty million lives. For it to surrender +<em>its</em> interest, to make itself poor, weak, or maimed, +is to do that to forty millions, many of them +children. How then can it have the same duty +that you have; and how can its normal primary +duty help being its duty to itself? Nor is this all. +It, your country, is not merely these forty millions, +any more than an oak is the leaves of this year. +Your country’s span of life is not a little threescore +years and ten. Its honour is the honour of its +countless dead, and both its honour and its +welfare are those of its innumerable sons and +daughters yet to be. How can it, the state of this +year, a mere trustee, have the same right and duty +to sacrifice that welfare that you have to sacrifice +yours? And even this, again, is not all. You +can sacrifice yours, for you are but one of forty +millions. But how many states are there in the +world? Not a hundred, I imagine.<a id='r11'></a><a href='#f11' class='c013'><sup>[11]</sup></a> And, out of +these, how many whose value to mankind is +equal to the value of your state? Let us be +modest and say ‘six’. Well, but if your country +had only a hundred inhabitants, and only six of +them were as useful as you, your right and duty +to injure or risk your life would undergo a prodigious +change. I do not say it would vanish, +nor that a state cannot have such a duty; but +the question whether such a duty has arisen +cannot be settled by comparison with the duties of +a citizen.</p> + +<p class='c012'><span class='pageno' id='Page_64'>64</span>I trust I have not seemed to be championing +either national selfishness<a id='r12'></a><a href='#f12' class='c013'><sup>[12]</sup></a> or war. No one can be +more convinced that it is sometimes the duty of +a state to forgo an advantage, to run a risk, and +even to injure itself in some degree, in order to +help another actively or allow another to develop +itself, if (I must add) it is satisfied that this is +to the advantage of mankind. And, as to war, +I should like to say briefly how I regard it (which +it would be absurd to do if I thought this view +a merely personal one). Certainly I believe that +a war may be right and therefore a duty; and +I do not see how to maintain that an offensive +war can <em>never</em> be so. Nor could I for a moment +admit—what is often taken for granted—that +peace is an unconditional good. Nothing is so +except the best possible life; and peace, though it +is the normal foundation of that, is no more. +Hence, when I ask myself whether I wish for the +total disappearance of war, I answer ‘Yes, if, or +when, uninterrupted peace can perform the office +and generate the good of war’. There are wars +almost entirely evil; but war, on the whole, may +roughly be compared with tragedy—I mean the +tragic actions and sufferings portrayed by great +poets. If things had to be classed roughly as good +and evil, war and tragedy would be placed among +the evils. But if the disappearance of either +meant the disappearance, or even a lowering, of +those noble and glorious energies of the soul which +<span class='pageno' id='Page_65'>65</span>appear in both and are in part the cause of both, +the life of perpetual peace would be a poor thing, +superficially less terrible perhaps than the present +life, but much less great and good. Nor, if I may +say so, do I understand how this view can seem +heathenish to any one who believes that suffering, +and even wrong, have some meaning in the world.</p> + +<p class='c012'>But those who think thus about war are not +therefore champions of war. They may believe +that it does lie in man’s power slowly by degrees +to gain in peace all the good of war; that it is +monstrous to call war an end in itself, or even, if +we speak strictly, one of the purposes of the state; +that many wars, perhaps most, have been, so far +as we can see, needless and therefore, in their +origin, wholly wrong; and that the diminution +of war is assuredly to be desired and pursued. +And so I hasten to a few remarks on the second +subject of the lecture.</p> + +<p class='c011'>This subject is not the conditions of the peace to +which we are looking forward—no safe matter for +public discussion even by persons more competent +than I. And, further, the proposals, or rather the +one proposal of which there is time to speak, belong—in +my view at least—to a future more or less +distant, and in any case subsequent to the period +when, as we trust, the feelings produced by this +war will be dying away. For we surely cannot +imagine that any ambitious scheme can work +unless it has behind it positive goodwill as well +as a desire to avoid the evils of war.</p> + +<p class='c012'><span class='pageno' id='Page_66'>66</span>Let us assume, and so dismiss, as a thing which +seems clearly coming to be in principle admitted, +the duty of states to observe international law,<a id='r13'></a><a href='#f13' class='c013'><sup>[13]</sup></a> +and to refer to arbitration in some form such +matters as may safely be so referred; and I will +merely remind the despondent that the progress +towards that admission during the last fifty or +even twenty years has been nothing less than +immense. Even in this matter, no doubt, much +remains to be done; but what is desired is much +more than this. It is an arrangement or institution +likely to diminish the chances of war about the +more difficult and dangerous questions: for +example the question, not of the complicity of +Serbian officials in the murder of the Archduke, +but whether Serbia was pursuing a policy, or +encouraging a movement, aimed at the integrity +of Austria-Hungary; a question which, I imagine, +neither state would have cared to submit to +a court unless it had been pretty sure what the +decision would be. And, if we recall the differences +<span class='pageno' id='Page_67'>67</span>pointed out between an individual and a state, +it seems clear that what is wanted is something +like that state-law which stands above individuals, +something which, at its best, is an embodiment of +reason, perfectly impartial, and possessed of overwhelming +force.</p> + +<p class='c012'>The idea of a United States, or Confederation, of +Europe has been mooted for some centuries.<a id='r14'></a><a href='#f14' class='c013'><sup>[14]</sup></a> +Kant took it up a hundred and twenty years +ago, and drew the outline of a scheme in his essay +on <cite>Perpetual Peace</cite>. It was a favourite idea with +Mazzini. And it is now coming into the foreground +in various shapes, of which the following is perhaps +the most definite. The states of Europe, by +federation or without it, would form a permanent +council to decide all international differences, +arbitrable or other, and, if necessary, to carry +out the decision through an armed force, to +which in some agreed way their several armies +would contribute. But, considering the overwhelming +power of the Union as compared with +that of a recalcitrant state, this necessity, it is +thought, would never, or at any rate very rarely, +arise.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Just because this idea is so attractive and +appears so hopeful, I propose to pass by its obvious +advantages and to touch on some of its difficulties +and dangers; but I must first mention a variation +in the scheme, due to a sense of one of these +<span class='pageno' id='Page_68'>68</span>dangers. Seeley, soon after the Franco-German +War (<cite>Macmillan’s Magazine</cite>, March, 1871), considered +the United States idea, with results which +may be thus condensed. (1) The Union must be +a federation, and a close one, as close as that of +the United States of America. (2) No state must +possess an armed force of its own: the only army +would be that of the Federation. (3) Existing +states would never consent to this provision; but +a long and unremitting propaganda among all the +populations (for it is to <em>them</em> that peace is all-important) +might quite possibly compel their +governments to adopt the scheme. ‘Possibly’, +I say to myself, ‘it might, but nothing else +would; and if the populations ever acquired so +unanimous and resolute a will for peace, surely +the need of a Union would have disappeared, and, +with states remaining as separate as they are now, +the chances of war would be as much diminished +as they can be.’ Therefore, without discussing +the feasibility of Seeley’s plan, or its desirability +(which is far from indubitable), I go on to some +remarks on the unmodified scheme.</p> + +<p class='c012'>1. Since the Union would deal with all disputes, +and not only with what may be called legal ones, +could all its states have equal voices in the council? +Where vital interests are concerned, can one ask +or expect that a fifty-million state should have +no more votes than a five-million one? Surely +not. In any case, whatever the voting-arrangements +of the council might be, it seems wellnigh +certain that these disputes would in effect be +<span class='pageno' id='Page_69'>69</span>settled, I do not say in the interest of the Great +Powers, but by them.</p> + +<p class='c012'>2. When a decree unfavourable to a powerful +state (or more than one) was felt by it to touch +deeply its honour or interests, there would always +be danger of its trying to elude the requirements +laid on it, and an equal danger that other states +would shut their eyes to this attempt rather than +enforce the decree at the cost of all the evils of +war. It is vain to imagine that states would +constantly put their duty to Europe in front of +their duty to their own people.</p> + +<p class='c012'>3. There would always be danger of secret +combinations of individual states in pursuit of +what they thought their common interests over +against the interests of the rest; a danger therefore +that things would either drift back to their +present position or else lead to civil war in the +Union. Some people appear to have forgotten +that there was ever civil war in the American +Union; but ugly facts do not vanish by being +ignored, and we have to remember too that the +European Union would consist of states differing +in race or nationality far more than the American +states.</p> + +<p class='c012'>4. Europe is not the world. There is, for +example, a western hemisphere. Would the American +Union be willing to join the European, and +so to entangle itself in our disputes? And, if it +were, would many European states care to give +it the chance? Scarcely, unless it became what +some writers apparently imagine it to be already, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_70'>70</span>an eminently peace-loving, self-sacrificing, and +scrupulous Power.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Let us suppose, then, that it stayed outside. +In that case, war between it and one or more of +the European states would not, presumably, be +held to involve the rest. And yet the success of +the European Union would depend a good deal +on the growth of a special European feeling +which does not now exist; and, just as the growth +of national feeling has brought great dangers with +it, so, though doubtless in smaller measure, would +the growth of that European feeling. And in the +West, we must remember, we have not only the +United States but the Monroe doctrine. The +possibility I am pointing to is a frightful one, and, +some will say, too frightful to be realized. And so +they said, a year ago, of a possibility which at +this moment is an appalling fact.</p> + +<p class='c012'>It should be needless to refer to similar risks +arising from the greatness of Japan, a possible +revival of China, the facts that Russia extends +into Asia and that the other great European +Powers have colonies or dependencies outside +Europe. When the idea of a European Union was +first broached, the dangers of which I have lately +been speaking were not yet in sight.</p> + +<p class='c012'>5. There is still another, and a very grave one. +History is a continual change, and, as we all hope +and some of us believe, the change is, in the main, +a progress. But is it not probable, to say the least, +that to a European Union the easiest and the most +tempting course would generally be to discourage +<span class='pageno' id='Page_71'>71</span>change and maintain the <em>status quo</em>? And if its +first or chief object were peace, would it not seem +right in doing this? Yet if such a Union had been +formed a century ago, and had not soon been broken +by the secession of England and France, would it +not certainly have discouraged and even resisted +most of the changes that we now think good—changes, +let us remember, made largely by +insurrection and war? We know what the Holy +Alliance actually did and wanted to do. Well, +we may feel fairly secure that the European +Union would not resemble it in supporting mere +‘legitimacy’, but can we feel secure that, in the +very interest of law and peace, it would never +‘haply be found fighting against God’; or, if +that phrase is objected to, let us say ‘fighting +against changes that are necessary for the progress +of mankind’?<a id='r15'></a><a href='#f15' class='c013'><sup>[15]</sup></a></p> + +<p class='c012'>The difficulties and dangers now mentioned +(and there may well be others) are formidable. +To meet and surmount them would tax, no doubt, +the foresight and skill of statesmen, and the +goodwill of populations which cannot be expected +<span class='pageno' id='Page_72'>72</span>to have foresight and skill. But they do not +appear to be more than dangers and difficulties, +nor does the ideal of a United States (not necessarily +a federation) seem to conflict with anything +fundamental in the nature of the state; while +both the course of history and the minds of men +do seem to have been moving for some time in +this direction. On the other hand, as has been +suggested already, any attempt to realize that +ideal in the immediate future would almost +certainly be vain and, if vain, highly dangerous; +and there are reasons not yet mentioned for +fearing that the time when it could succeed must +be distant. Must we not accept what Mazzini used +to say of such an ideal—that it could not be made +real until two pre-requisites had been attained?<a id='r16'></a><a href='#f16' class='c013'><sup>[16]</sup></a></p> + +<p class='c012'>The map of Europe must first be re-drawn, he +said, so that the divisions of states correspond with +those of nationality. A deliverance like this must +be taken somewhat loosely. It did not mean for +Mazzini that the Union of England, Scotland, +Wales, and Ireland must be dissolved, or that the +German Empire must cease to exist; and we are +told that there are ethnical unities in the south-east +of Europe which are geographically so distributed +that they could not form single states. But, +any really necessary qualification being admitted, +the general statement appears sound. The sentiment +of nationality has unquestionably been one +<span class='pageno' id='Page_73'>73</span>of the chief causes of unrest and war in Europe +ever since the Powers established in 1815 a system +based on legitimacy. And this sentiment, which +is not a sentiment but a passion and almost +a religious faith, shows not the slightest sign of +dying away. It has wellnigh destroyed the +Turkish Empire in Europe, in Mazzini’s view one +of the two main obstacles to progress. The other +was the Austrian Empire; and the working of +that same passion in Serbia may have initiated +the dissolution of that Empire too.</p> + +<p class='c012'>According to Mazzini, the second pre-requisite of +a United States was that all the states concerned +should have become democratic. Kant, using +another terminology, had said the same thing. +What is in question here is, surely, not chiefly the +‘democratization’ of foreign policy and diplomacy, +about which much nonsense is being written just +now, and some good sense.<a id='r17'></a><a href='#f17' class='c013'><sup>[17]</sup></a> When we call a state +democratic, and when we use the word in a strictly +political sense, we mean, roughly speaking, that +it has a very large electorate, and that the power +which acts for the state really represents, and is +responsible to, this electorate. And, though we +may feel less confident than Mazzini was, that +democracies would always be friendly and never +more pugnacious than nobles or kings, most of us +perhaps will agree that the prospects of peace will +not be greatly improved so long as the power to +<span class='pageno' id='Page_74'>74</span>make war rests, openly or otherwise, either with +an autocrat, wise and good or foolish and ill-willed, +as chance may determine, or with representatives +of sectional interests, social, military, +bureaucratic, or financial, all of which, though in +varying degrees, are separable from national +interests and provide motives for unnecessary +wars. Only it must be remembered that a state +is not democratic merely because its government +fairly represents the nation. In this war, for +example, the German Government appears to +represent the German people as fully as our Government +does ours. Yet Germany is in no sense +democratic, and England, politically, is.<a id='r18'></a><a href='#f18' class='c013'><sup>[18]</sup></a></p> + +<p class='c011'>This brings me to a last word. Perhaps some +of my hearers, listening to the earlier part of +this lecture, may have said to themselves: ‘Why +this theorizing about the nature of the state and +its exalted mission? It is just what has brought +the Germans to worship force and to glorify to +themselves their desire for domination.’ This particular +charge against German philosophy is in the +fashion, and, although a proper discussion of it is +out of the question here, I should like to refer to it.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Even if it had much truth, we English are not +Germans, and intoxication by ideas is not exactly +a failing of the English—nor even of the Scotch, +who do reverence intellect. But the truth in +<span class='pageno' id='Page_75'>75</span>this charge is not great. What has led, apparently, +a large number of Germans to the strange, perverted +state of mind we witness, is surely not, in +the main, ideas, philosophical or other, but first +and foremost what has happened to Germany. +After being for long years, even for centuries, +a ‘Hamlet among the nations’; great, that is +to say, in the purely spiritual spheres of religion, +philosophy, music, poetry, but, to all appearance, +incapable in the world of political action, she +found herself on a sudden, five-and-forty years +ago, the most powerful state in Europe. She owed +this, too, in the main, not to a long and arduous +effort of her peoples (for that would have had +a different effect), but to a merely military force +enlarged and perfected by the unconstitutional +action of a statesman and a king. And on the +success of this military force and of a Machiavellian +diplomacy in creating the Empire there +followed (what also was to a large extent new) an +immense increase in industrial and commercial +activity, in wealth, and in population. It would +be no great wonder, I think, if any people’s head +were turned by such a change.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Next to this chief cause comes the fact (as, on +the testimony of others, I suppose it to be) that +the views and feelings thus generated concerning +the greatness and the future of Germany have +been for years assiduously fostered in the people +through an admirably efficient system of university +and school education.<a id='r19'></a><a href='#f19' class='c013'><sup>[19]</sup></a></p> + +<p class='c012'><span class='pageno' id='Page_76'>76</span>Now what has philosophy had to do with the +ideas so instilled, and with other ideas that have +gone to produce a perverted ideal and state of +mind? Something, no doubt, but of that something +very little belongs to the great philosophers. +A leading German historian, I am told, criticizes +Plato and Aristotle because they say almost +nothing about the state’s being essentially <em>might</em>. +Perhaps they thought this undeniable fact too obvious +to need emphasis; but in any case the same +criticism might be passed on Kant and Hegel. It +is true that in Hegel’s <cite><span lang="de">Rechtsphilosophie</span></cite> there are +a few expressions which, taken in isolation and +exaggerated as a philosopher’s ideas are apt to +be, might do harm; but in all its pages, while +there is much about will and the will for good, +there is little enough about force.<a id='r20'></a><a href='#f20' class='c013'><sup>[20]</sup></a> Germany’s +<span class='pageno' id='Page_77'>77</span>greatest philosopher since Hegel, I suppose, is +Lotze, a teacher about as likely as Mill or Green +to encourage the worship of force. Indeed, so +far as I know, the only philosopher who is, in +a degree worth notice, responsible for that worship +is Nietzsche, who was neither an admirer of the +Prussian state nor by any means a great philosopher. +He was, however, a man of genius, with a poetic +imagination and an admirable style; and in +Germany that is a thing rarer than a philosopher +and, to the mass of readers, much more dangerous. +If he could have written as Kant wrote he would +scarcely have done much mischief. Nobody could +bear to read Kant who was not bent on finding +truth, but truth is not the quarry that Nietzsche’s +thousands of readers hunt.</p> + +<p class='c012'>If Germany were doomed to win this war, she +might continue—for how long, we cannot tell—to +be the victim of a perverse ideal. But any +Englishman who reveres and loves that soul of +her which speaks in her music, philosophy, and +poetry, must desire her total defeat for her own +sake as well as for his country’s and the world’s. +It is incredible that that soul is dead, and that +anguish would not wake it from its evil dream.</p> + +<div class='chapter'> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_78'>78</span> + <h2 class='c005'>IV<br> <span class='c010'>THE CHANGING MIND OF A NATION AT WAR</span></h2> +</div> + +<div class='nf-center-c0'> +<div class='nf-center c003'> + <div><span class='sc'>By L. P. Jacks</span></div> + </div> +</div> + +<p class='c011'>I owe you a word of explanation for the seeming +audacity displayed in the title of my lecture. +What right have I, what right has any one, to +speak for the mind of the nation? Surely the +most that one can do is to describe the changes +of his own mind. The mind of the nation is +beyond him.</p> + +<p class='c012'>I do not believe this. There is one mind in all +of us at the present moment—and it is the mind +of the nation. The mind of the nation has +become, to a greater degree than ever before, the +mind of the individual citizen. That is the +greatest of all the changes which have taken place +since the war began. The national mind is no +longer a mere theme for speculation. It has +entered, in some measure, into every one of us. +It has become an active principle of our consciousness. +It has brought great thoughts and +great resolutions to multitudes. It has both +amplified and simplified our lives. It has wakened +powers that slumbered; it has revived great +memories that were half forgotten; it has linked +us together and made us one.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Under these circumstances there is no audacity +in speaking of the mind of the nation. The +<span class='pageno' id='Page_79'>79</span>distinction between our own thoughts and the +nation’s thoughts is being obliterated. Ask the +first honest man you meet to tell you what he is +thinking, and if he answers faithfully, he will tell +you something of what the nation is thinking.</p> + +<h3 class='c016'>I</h3> + +<p class='c017'>Never, in my memory, has intercourse with +thoughtful men been as suggestive and stimulating +as it has been since the war broke out. It is +hardly possible, to-day, to enter into conversation +with an educated person without noting the +emergence of some new point of view. Under the +strain and pressure of the time mens’ minds are +yielding ideas and making discoveries. There is +in consequence a certain vividness in the intellectual +life of the country which relieves, to some +extent, the moral distress. In the presence of +danger our intelligence, our imagination, our will, +are unusually wide awake. We begin to perceive +the limits of accepted forms of thought, the +inadequacy of the standards by which we have +been accustomed to pass judgement on life and +on history, and the partial nature of truths we +had regarded as final and complete. A great disturbance, +like that of an earthquake, is passing +beneath our life, and the elements of that life are +rearranging themselves in new perspectives. We +are virtually living in another world compared +with that in which we were alive eight months ago.</p> + +<p class='c012'>The world before the war was comparatively +<em>safe</em>; the world of to-day is <em>threatened</em>. Eight +<span class='pageno' id='Page_80'>80</span>months ago we looked out into a future which +seemed assured. We were laying out plans, +buying, selling, building, marrying and giving in +marriage, like the men of old before the Lord +rained fire on Sodom and Gomorrah. Our sons +were growing up and we were arranging their +peaceful careers. To-day our sons are in arms, +and under orders for the front, and as they gather +round us for the parting feast, we thank God that +we cannot raise the veil of the future. Our most +intimate ties are threatened with possibilities of +which we dare not think. Thus at the very centre +of our life the earthquake begins, and it runs +outward until every idea, every habit of mind, +every interest, every conviction, has received some +share of the shock. But the shock, far from +paralysing the nation’s mind, serves rather to +liberate its reserves of intellectual vitality. The +new world in which we find ourselves is not +terrible only; it is full of challenge to our thinking +faculties. It provides a daily stimulus to spiritual +curiosity. Thus the intercourse of thoughtful +men grows more vivid, and it becomes easy to +understand how, from conditions like these, new +births of the soul have come to nations; times of +danger and calamity being often followed by times +of creativeness in all the arts of life.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Ladies and gentlemen, are we not all <em>thinking +more</em> than we did before the war began—thinking +more deeply, more earnestly, more constantly? +There is a new thoughtfulness in the air which is +raising the level of intelligence in all classes of the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_81'>81</span>community. The matters we are thinking about +are big and terrible and splendid, all at the same +time. We are asking questions which it is an +education to ask, even though for the time being +we cannot answer them. Because the questions +are great questions they are giving us a juster +sense of proportion. We are thinking a little +more about our duties and a little less about our +rights. ‘Business’ still goes on; but not quite +as usual, for something more important than +business is in our minds. We are measuring ourselves +by higher standards. The heroism of the +forces, the daily spectacle of our young men going +to the war, reminds us of ethical truths we had +half forgotten. Great questions about society and +civilization are challenging our minds and compelling +us to look at them from new angles of +vision. It is good for us to be ‘brought up sharp’ +by these things. Still better, that we should be +forced to think of them not as mere academic +questions, but as questions of life and death. +And best of all, when the whole people is forced +to think about them <em>at the same time</em>. We are +coming <em>together</em> into the presence of these problems. +That makes an enormous difference. One +reason why the great concerns of life are not +better cared for is that in normal times the +interest taken in them is piecemeal. You think +of them to-day and I think of them to-morrow, +with the result that I am hot while you are cold, +and I am critical while you are enthusiastic. But +the new thoughtfulness is not of that broken, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_82'>82</span>interrupted kind. It is simultaneous and widespread. +We are all in it at once. You remember +what Emerson says about the strange things that +may happen when God lets loose a thinker on this +planet. But this time a thinking community has +been let loose. Momentous results are bound to +follow.</p> + +<p class='c012'>I am inclined to believe that the mind of the +nation was never in a more hopeful frame. I cannot +go to the length of a writer in one of the +daily papers who says that England was never so +happy. The tragedy is too deep for that. But +I do think that England was never so promising. +What will come from her awakened thoughtfulness +no man can predict. But if it should turn out +to be better than the best we have ever hoped for, +there would be no cause for surprise.</p> + +<h3 class='c016'>II</h3> + +<p class='c017'>And here we come to a strange and paradoxical +thing. One of the first effects of this awakened +intelligence is to raise a doubt as to whether the +minds of nations are as intelligent as we thought +them to be. For a long time past a kind of +humanism has been current which took the form +of an enthusiastic faith in the ‘march of mind’. +Appearances seemed to warrant the belief that +men, organized in modern societies, were becoming +far more reasonable than their fathers. But look +at this war! What comment does it suggest on +the ‘march of mind’? Think not of this nation +or of that, dismiss the question of whose diplomacy +<span class='pageno' id='Page_83'>83</span>was right or wrong, and view the war as though +it were, what indeed it is, a single action performed +by civilization. What is our impression? +Do we feel ourselves in presence of some masterpiece +of wisdom? Speaking for myself, I can only +say that the war, viewed as a single action, +appears to be the kind of action that could only +be performed by a fool. I cannot get away from +the feeling that I am in the presence of some +colossal stupidity. Since history began to record +the deeds of men, has there ever been seen such +an exhibition of limited intelligence? Who in his +sane senses would do such a thing?</p> + +<p class='c012'>Just think what has happened. For generations +past the general level of intelligence in +Western Europe has been rising. The individual +is better educated. Millions of these better +educated individuals are combined into societies +more or less democratic. But what has become +of this vast aggregate of intelligence? Has it all +gone into the common stock? Is it all employed +for the common good? Does the intelligence of +every citizen reinforce the intelligence of every +other citizen, so that States become endowed with +the sum total of all the wisdom in all of their +members? Apparently not. Most of this intelligence +seems to be wasted away in mutual +criticism, in the war of minds, before the State +can get possession of what remains. Does it not +seem as though there were some process of inner +opposition at work by which a multitude of minds +will often neutralize each other’s intelligence; so +<span class='pageno' id='Page_84'>84</span>that States, instead of being wiser than individuals, +often perpetrate follies of which the least intelligent +of their members would be heartily ashamed?</p> + +<p class='c012'>I am inclined to think, therefore, that we shall +emerge from the war with a chastened confidence +in the mere ‘march of mind’. We shall think +more, we are already thinking more, of those +other qualities, such as the plain sense of right +and wrong, with which the march of mind needs +to be blended before it can do its work. Many +disillusions of this kind are on the way. There +is a feeling abroad which is not quite articulate as +yet, that the war has somehow brought us into +contact with Reality, and that our ideas must be +modified accordingly. ‘We are up against the +real thing’ is a phrase you must often have heard. +It is frequently used in soldiers’ letters written +from the front; I have encountered it in sermons, +political speeches, and newspaper articles, in conversations +with working men; and in the comments +of distinguished philosophers.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Now I will not attempt to define what the +‘real thing’ is. I am not quite sure that I know. +But I think I can point out one of its characteristics. +The ‘real thing’ as we are now feeling +its presence is not a mere subject for <em>study</em>: it is +something we have to <em>obey</em>. It is a command, +a summons, a trumpet note. In ordinary times +Reality shows us its <em>interesting</em> side. Just now it +is showing its <em>imperative</em> side. In ordinary times +we talk about it. Just now it is talking to us. +I can almost imagine that Reality is paying off +<span class='pageno' id='Page_85'>85</span>an old score it had against us. We had been +writing philosophical essays about it, treating it +as ‘our subject’, as though we had it in the +hollow of our hand; and perhaps Reality was +getting a little tired of hearing itself defined and +discussed. Anyhow the real thing is no longer +passive. It has become intensely active. It has +given us a shock, it has roused us to our duty and +put a constraint upon our wills. The consequence +is that a good deal of nonsense is being knocked +out of us. Let us hope it will not return! We +were much too comfortable, much too complacent, +much too selfish, before the war. And we were +hardly prepared for so sudden a change of behaviour +on the part of the real thing.</p> + +<h3 class='c016'>III</h3> + +<p class='c017'>One effect of this shock has been to change our +attitude towards the State, and to make us think +differently of the rights and duties of the State.</p> + +<p class='c012'>For many years past, there had been a tendency +among us to look to the State as an omnipotent +power whose function and duty were to gratify +our desires and do our bidding. Whatever we +wanted, better trade, higher wages, easier conditions +of life, schoolrooms, playgrounds, libraries, +art galleries, food for our children, provision for +our old age—and so on through an endless list—whatever +it was, we exploited the State. And the +State, like an indulgent mother, gave in to us all +round. Now this one had his turn, and now that; +and there was a good deal of quarrelling among us +<span class='pageno' id='Page_86'>86</span>as to whose turn came next. There seemed no +limit to what the State could do for us, and no +limit either to what we had the right to demand. +It was a demoralizing business—demoralizing to +us who got our way, demoralizing to the State +which gave us our way. But it went on merrily +and the wildest expectations were abroad of vast +favours yet to come. A few more teasings, a few +more pistols held at the head of the State, and +a ‘scheme’ would be forthcoming which would +render us all happy and good in spite of ourselves.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Then, one fine morning last August, there came +a rude awakening. We got a message from the +State couched in language we had never heard +before. ‘I require you,’ said the State, ‘to place +your property and your lives at my service. Now +and for some time to come, I give nothing but +ask everything. Arm yourselves for my defence. +Give me your sons and be willing that they should +die for me. Repay what you owe me. <em>My</em> turn +has come.’</p> + +<p class='c012'>That is how the Real Thing talks to men when +it uses the State as its mouthpiece. Considering +how strange and unaccustomed the language was, +I think the response the nation made was to its +credit. No sooner did the State turn its imperative +side towards us than an instant peace fell +upon our warring factions. We had all been +waiting for that word of command to make us +one—waiting but not knowing what we waited +for. Our demands on the State had been for +different things: the State’s demand on us was +<span class='pageno' id='Page_87'>87</span>for the same thing—for uttermost self-sacrifice. +It brought us together as nothing else could have +done. This was the first result of our contact +with the Real Thing.</p> + +<h3 class='c016'>IV</h3> + +<p class='c017'>This awakening of a sense of duty to the State +is leading to a more thorough understanding of +the particular State to which we happen to +belong—I mean of course the British Empire. +This is another and a very promising change in +the national mind. During the last few months +a new vision has come to many of us of what the +British Empire really is.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Speaking of Britons in general, I am afraid it +must be confessed that our knowledge of the +Empire, our grasp of its significance, have been +inadequate to the immense human issues, and +to the corresponding responsibilities, which the +Empire involves. We have been proud of this +vast heritage, we have complacently enjoyed the +advantages which come to all of us from its +possession, we have talked vaguely and largely +about imperialism, but we have hardly taken our +imperial duties to heart. Some of us may have +done so, but not the nation as a whole. To the +majority of the electorate the Empire has been +a side issue, or a thing that might be left to look +after itself. It seemed too big and too broadly +based to be in danger of disturbance. Few of us +gave much thought to it; few of us allowed our +imaginations to play round its meaning; still +<span class='pageno' id='Page_88'>88</span>fewer took the trouble to study its history. Had +we done so we should have realized, as I am +afraid not many did realize, that a day would +dawn when our right to possess this Empire would +be put to the proof, when we should be challenged +before the world to show that our intelligence and +our valour were equal to the vast imperial enterprise +on which we had engaged.</p> + +<p class='c012'>But let us not forget that the British Empire, +in its present extent and organization, is a comparatively +recent phenomenon. In size, in wealth, +in the civilization of its component parts and +their close relations with one another, its characteristics +are so different from what they were +a century ago that we can draw no parallel with +the Napoleonic era. And now, for the first time +in its history, this Greater Britain is being attacked—and +attacked with unexampled vehemence and +resolution. It is a new experience, and like all +new experiences it is compelling a readjustment of +thought.</p> + +<p class='c012'>This is a war of the Empire, by the Empire, for +the Empire—and by the Empire I mean all for +which the Empire stands, its ideals as well as its +actualities. The Colonies and India are fighting +for us and we are fighting for them. Our fellow +subjects in India are represented by a great army +of fine warriors, who have helped to check the +would-be invaders of our shores. Gurkhas, Sikhs, +and Pathans have shed their blood that London +might be safe. Mohammedan, Hindu, and Christian +have fallen side by side in defence of the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_89'>89</span>liberties of our race. This, I say, is a new thing +in our history. We feel a deepened intimacy with +these widely sundered races; the dominions over +the seas seem no further off than the next county. +The Germans predicted that the outbreak of war +would split the Empire into fragments. It has +given the Empire a splendid solidarity such as +it never before possessed. It has made us a +greater nation, not in the sense that it has added +to our dominions, but in the deeper sense that it +has caused our political consciousness to dilate +to the imperial scale. The political organization +of the Empire is acquiring a corporate mind, just +as the mother country after the defeat of the +Spanish Armada awoke to a new consciousness of +her national individuality and began to know +herself for what she was.</p> + +<p class='c012'>The parallel is profoundly interesting. It took +the English people many centuries to discover +their own country. The English in the reign of +Henry VIII had a vaguer notion of England than +we have of Canada (very few had seen a map of +England); of Scotland than we have of Ceylon; +of Ireland than we have of Central Africa. But +just as these vague conceptions gave place in +course of time to vision and realization and +patriotic love for England, so now we British are +beginning to think of the Empire as something +more than a confused extension of our national +boundaries, or as a group of appendages to our +national home. The Empire is becoming <em>our +country</em>, an inheritance of which we have to prove +<span class='pageno' id='Page_90'>90</span>ourselves worthy, and we are becoming its citizens +in heart as well as in name. Not that the change +is already complete or even very far advanced. +But no close observer of present tendencies will +doubt that the movement of the national mind +is in the direction of which I speak. Our imperial +soul is beginning to germinate. If the change +continues its ethical and spiritual consequences +will be very great.</p> + +<h3 class='c016'>V</h3> + +<p class='c017'>In connexion with this extension of our national +consciousness one may note at the present time +some curious questionings among thoughtful men +as to the bearing of democratic theory on our +imperial obligations. We call ourselves a democracy; +but there are moments, even in the course +of dealing with domestic problems, when we find +it hard to reconcile the facts with the theory. +And the difficulty becomes greater in proportion +as we extend our thoughts to the imperial scale. +According to the democratic theory the people +are to be consulted as to all that concerns their +interests. Well, there is nothing that concerns +our interests quite so deeply as the existence of +the Empire. But when has the people been +consulted in the matter? Proud as the British +may be of possessing an empire on which the sun +never sets, it is certain that the people as a whole +have never been asked whether they wished to +possess such an empire or not. They have never +been asked how large they wished the Empire to +<span class='pageno' id='Page_91'>91</span>be; or whether they would or would not be +content with something less or greater. In an +age when all things political are supposed to be +determined by voting it is a curious circumstance +that this, the greatest of political questions, has +never been voted on at all. Nay more. So far as +I know, the British people have never said to +themselves, as the Germans have recently been +saying, ‘Go to, now; world-dominion shall be +ours.’ It would tax the historian to fix the period +when the design for a world-wide empire became +a definite ambition of the British people. True, +there have been statesmen like the late Lord +Beaconsfield, or Lord Chatham in an earlier age, +who made plans for increasing the dominions of +the Crown. But the popular will did not originate +these designs, much as it may have applauded +them when they had been carried out—though +even this has not always been the case. Moreover, +the control exercised even by statesmen over the +process of imperial expansion has been of a distinctly +piecemeal character. As one annexation +followed another none of our ministers has foreseen +where the process would end. None of them has +had a vision in advance of the Empire as it exists +to-day—in extent, in population, and in wealth. +As Seeley long ago pointed out, we have conquered +half the world in a fit of absence of mind. +Indeed it would be extremely hard to fix responsibility +for the existence of the Empire, in its +present character, on any group or series of statesmen, +or on any particular generation of Britons—to +<span class='pageno' id='Page_92'>92</span>say nothing of individual men. A province +here, a frontier there, an island somewhere else +might be correctly set down to an assignable wave +of public opinion or to the diplomacy of a particular +minister. But the total growth seems to +have escaped from human control altogether. +Certainly nothing would be more untrue than to +treat the existence of the Empire as though it +corresponded to the expressed will of the living +generation. We have not <em>willed</em> it into being. +We have found it there—like so many of the +financial obligations—e.g. the National Debt—which +have been inherited from the past, and +have to be accepted whether we like them or not, +in spite of the maxim which is said to be the +corner-stone of the constitution—‘No taxation +without representation’.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Our new vision of the Empire is teaching us +another thing. We are learning to understand +more clearly the influence of the past on the +present. We begin to see that we inherit from +the past something more than the monuments +of the mighty dead. We inherit the very form +and pressure of our national life; the range, significance +and general direction of our imperial +duties. We inherit not our social problems only; +but the courage to attack them, and much of the +wisdom which guides us to their solution. These +in all their essential features have been determined +not <em>by</em> us but <em>for</em> us by the action of forces +which did their work before we came into existence. +We are therefore in no mood to respond to the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_93'>93</span>lines of the well-known hymn which bid us ‘give +the past unto the wind’. A past which has +bequeathed to us our national status and the +broad outline of our imperial responsibilities, a +past which has given us our political idealism and +our love of liberty, cannot be ‘given to the wind’ +without a degree of treachery of which the fiercest +anarchist in our midst is not capable. Without +distinction we feel ourselves bound to ‘carry on’; +and what we are ‘carrying on’ is the work of our +fathers from the most distant ages to the present +day. We are learning the great truth of which +Burke was the prophet—the immortality of the +State. The past is throbbing in our veins. The +cause we are fighting for is a thousand years old. +Patriots and martyrs for liberty are no longer +mere names in the book of history; they are +living forces in our midst. The buried generations +are with us. We are members of a community +which is continuous in time and has +millions of members, vast clouds of witnesses from +every age, whose work is waiting for our loyalty +to make it complete.</p> + +<h3 class='c016'>VI</h3> + +<p class='c017'>Ladies and gentlemen, all the changes I have +described run together into one and lead our minds +in the same direction. They are driving the +thoughts of the nation to the roots of things. +They are forcing us to question the whole basis +of our civilization. With the war before our eyes +we are prepared to find that there is something +<span class='pageno' id='Page_94'>94</span><em>radically</em> wrong. We are beginning to suspect that +the mischief is deep-seated. It is true that these +suspicions had often been roused before this war +broke out. A visit to the slums will rouse them +any day. But the war has made this difference: +it has brought us <em>all together</em> into a suspicious +frame of mind; so that if anybody could make +clear to us what the driving forces of civilization +really are, the mind of the nation would at once +challenge these forces to give an account of themselves +and hold them under suspicion until they +could prove their innocence.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Now there are two great forces which as everybody +knows have been mightily at work in +European history for the last hundred years. One +is militarism, the other is industrialism. The mind +of the nation is thinking deeply about both of +them. Militarism we have always suspected: industrialism +has borne a better character, though +some of us have had our doubts. But recently +there have been signs—and they have been +especially prominent in Germany—that these two +forces are much more intimately connected than +once seemed possible. What have militarism and +industrialism to do with one another? How are +they related? The war has thrown a new light +on that question and I will try to express some +of our thoughts.</p> + +<p class='c012'>On a superficial view we are tempted to describe +the relation of industrialism to militarism as one +of antagonism. The two principles are simply +opposed the one to the other. Industrialism, we +<span class='pageno' id='Page_95'>95</span>think, makes for peace; militarism for war. +Whence follows the simple conclusion that the +destruction of militarism will leave the peace-making +principle in control of civilization and +fighting will be at an end.</p> + +<p class='c012'>I believe that thoughtful people are becoming +more and more dissatisfied with this simple +account of the matter.</p> + +<p class='c012'>To begin with, there is the fact staring us in the +face that an age which is saturated with industrialism +has given birth to the bloodiest and most +destructive war the world has ever seen. We +have no need, at this point, to assert the disputable +proposition that industrialism has caused the war. +Let us content ourselves with the indisputable +proposition that industrialism has not prevented +the war.</p> + +<p class='c012'>If industrialism were essentially pacific this +failure to prevent the war would be hard to understand. +As the dominant interest of nations and +individuals, and as making always for peace, how +has it come to pass, we may well ask, that industrialism +has been unable to restrain the forces +which make for war, and for war on the most +stupendous scale? We had flattered ourselves that +commerce by multiplying and strengthening the +ties between nations, would make it impossible +for these to tear themselves asunder and engage +in mutual destruction. The event has proved we +were in error.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Reflecting more deeply on its failure to keep the +peace, a suspicion gains ground that industrialism +<span class='pageno' id='Page_96'>96</span>when unchecked by other forces may be a positive +cause of war. By increasing the wealth, the +ostentation, and the pride of the peoples, does it +not serve to accentuate their rivalries, to deepen +their jealousies, and to inflame their predatory +passions? Is it not true that wherever great +treasure-chests exist, there will robbers be found +also; and is the treasure less provocative of +covetousness when gained by commerce, than +when extorted from the labour of slaves or exacted +by the ransom of conquered cities? Are two +nations, rich and happy in the sort of happiness +that comes from riches, more likely to be friends +than two poor nations each possessing nothing +which tempts the cupidity of the other?</p> + +<p class='c012'>For example, is not one of the chief causes of +the present hostility between Germany and Great +Britain to be found in the fact that both of them, +as we say, ‘have done so well in business’? Is it +of no significance that war broke out at the very +time when each was ‘doing better than ever’? +Eliminate, from the complex of conditions out +of which the war arose, the circumstance that +industry had made both these nations rich beyond +the dreams of avarice, and may we not say without +hesitation that war between them would not have +taken place?</p> + +<p class='c012'>What answer shall we give to these questions? +Shall we take refuge in the argument that industrialism +shows these baleful tendencies only +because it is imperfectly developed, and has not +yet become truly international in character? +<span class='pageno' id='Page_97'>97</span>Shall we plead for a finer articulation of the +commercial tie, and for more industrialism rather +than less? Will our dream of the millennium +be the conversion of the whole human race into +a Universal Joint Stock Company? Are we, in +a word, to content ourselves with the suppression +of militarism and trust the weal of the race to the +working out of the industrial principle, unhampered +by the interference of its military yoke-fellow?</p> + +<p class='c012'>Such answers show, I cannot help thinking, that +we are legislating for mankind without reckoning +with man, as we so often fail to do. They leave +untouched the tap-root of war—that primitive instinct +which the old legislation sought to restrain +by the command ‘Thou shalt not covet’.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Let us assume the extreme case and suppose +that on the conclusion of the war the nations of +Europe, convinced of their folly and wickedness, +abandon every form of armament and determine +for the future to spend not one farthing of the +national wealth on armies or fortresses or fleets. +What would follow?</p> + +<p class='c012'>The immediate result would be the liberation +of an enormous amount of wealth hitherto set +aside for military purposes. The greater part of +this wealth would flow into industrial channels. +It is fair to assume that industrialism would be +the gainer annually to the extent of five hundred +million sterling and of a labour force represented +by twenty millions of men. This is a prospect +that ought to make the mouths water of those who +<span class='pageno' id='Page_98'>98</span>think that industrial wealth is the foundation of +human good.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, the +United States—to speak of no others—rich as +they now are, would then grow enormously richer. +The natural resources of the earth would be +exploited to an extent of which the present +economic development, vast as it is, affords no +measure. The mere circumstance that each nation +might pursue its gains undisturbed by the risk of +aggression from the others would bring a vast +accession of confidence, and therefore of efficiency, +to the labour and capital employed. The total +population of the earth would grow by leaps and +bounds. And under any fairly equitable scheme +of distribution there would be enough wealth in +the world to render every member of the human +race well-off.</p> + +<p class='c012'>But would there be <em>peace</em>?</p> + +<p class='c012'>Long before the pleasing process we have +imagined could work itself out every one of the +great communities would be torn to pieces by +civil wars. This, I mean, is what would assuredly +happen if we suppose the economic process to go +on without some fundamental change in the ethos +of mankind.</p> + +<p class='c012'>The peace of nations depends only in part on the +suppression of militarism. In yet larger measure +it depends on the absence of disruptive tendencies +in the nations themselves.</p> + +<p class='c012'>What these disruptive tendencies can do, or at +least what they can threaten, was made sufficiently +<span class='pageno' id='Page_99'>99</span>clear in Great Britain during the few months +which preceded the outbreak of war. Nor were +we alone in this danger. I need not enter into +particulars, for the facts are well known. France, +Germany, Austria, Russia—even the United States—were +seething with discontent. I recall the +remark made to me by an American statesman +in 1912. Speaking of the prevalent social unrest +he said, ‘We are on the eve of a greater crisis +than that of our Civil War.’</p> + +<p class='c012'>Internal disruption is the inevitable fate of +every nation whose ethos, or ideal, rests upon +a purely industrial creed. The larger the scope +for pure industrialism and the fewer the checks +which hold it in restraint, the more rapidly do the +disruptive tendencies gather head and the more +destructive do they become. It is not the poorest +nations which reveal the maximum of social +discontent. It is the richest. And the prime +cause of this does not lie in the sense of inequality +between individuals who have more and individuals +who have less; that, no doubt, is a cause, but +secondary. The root evil is, that a community +which makes wealth its object, and pursues it on +the terms laid down by the economic machine, +is living under conditions which satisfy nobody +and against which all men are, by the higher +human nature, born rebels. From this point of +view success in the economic enterprise is even +worse for a nation than failure. The greater the +accumulation of wealth the more dissatisfied do +men become with the conditions of a merely +<span class='pageno' id='Page_100'>100</span>economic life. Industrial communities are always +more restless when trade is good than when trade +is bad, as though the rottenness of the system +could only be revealed by its triumph. Seldom, +however, does the restless spirit penetrate to the +true cause of the trouble. Unaware that the +trouble comes from the original vice of the whole +enterprise on which we are engaged, we throw +upon our fellow victims the blame for the common +lot, thinking that because these suffer less than +ourselves therefore they are responsible for our +sufferings—like the emigrants in the sinking ship +who in the blindness of their despair fell upon the +first-class passengers and tore them to pieces.</p> + +<p class='c012'>In short, the common pursuit of wealth is not +a <em>human</em> bond. It leads to the invention of +schemes and machinery of every kind—material, +political, and social; but, of itself, it can never +lead to the vital organization of mankind. Nay +rather, in spite of all that has been said of its +unifying tendency, we cannot doubt that its +final working is to disintegrate the community. +Seekers of buried treasure invariably quarrel +among themselves, for reasons which are manifest +to a child. They may arrange the most equitable +scheme for the division of the spoils, and seal their +mutual loyalty with fearful oaths, but before the +voyage is over the captain will be at the yardarm +and the deck will be slippery with the blood +of half the crew. Whether they sail under the +Jolly Roger, or under the red ensign of industrial +civilization, makes little difference. Whether the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_101'>101</span>spoil be buried in a pirate’s cavern or in the +unexploited resources of the earth, it all comes to +the same thing.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Nor must we forget that the disruptive tendencies +of pure industrialism have hitherto been +largely held in check by militarism itself. There +can hardly be a doubt that for many years past +the common fear of foreign aggression and the +common need of being prepared for it have played +a very considerable part, against contrary forces +working from within, in maintaining the cohesion +of every one of the great States now at war. +And if the question were raised, in which of the +great communities of the modern world have the +signs of economic disruption been most abundant, +should we not have to point for answer to that +country which is at once the wealthiest and the +least menaced by foreign war, and where all +classes have the largest share of this world’s goods—the +United States?</p> + +<p class='c012'>By this time we are all agreed about one thing: +militarism—I mean the kind of militarism in +which Germany has set the example—must go. +Whether a nobler militarism may arise hereafter +is a question: but of this kind we have had +enough and more than enough. But let us be +under no delusion as to the sequel. When +militarism goes the check will be removed which +has so far prevented industrialism from producing +its bitterest fruits. If, therefore, the war +merely yields the negative result of destroying +militarism, we may lay our account with the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_102'>102</span>certainty that there are yet greater troubles in +store for the world.</p> + +<p class='c012'>But there is ground for hope in the very magnitude +of the present calamity. Let me remind you +of something I have already mentioned in another +connexion: I mean the way in which the lessons +of the war are coming simultaneously to vast +multitudes of persons. Apply that to the mind +of Europe as a whole. All the nations involved +in the struggle are learning the same lesson <em>at the +same time</em>. All are engaged <em>together</em> in the bitter +but salutary process of discovering their souls. +A piecemeal repentance of the nations, following +a series of partial conflicts, might effect very little; +a simultaneous repentance, imposed by a world-war, +may effect a great deal.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Whatever new wisdom, whatever vision of the +weak spot in civilization are coming to ourselves +as a result of the war, we may be very sure that +the same wisdom, the same vision, are coming, in +the same way, to our allies and to our enemies. +Realizing this, may we not believe that beneath +the fierce and bloody oppositions of the hour +a profound principle of unity is at work?</p> + +<div class='chapter'> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_103'>103</span> + <h2 class='c005'>V<br> <span class='c010'>WAR AND HATRED<a id='r21'></a><a href='#f21' class='c013'><sup>[21]</sup></a></span></h2> +</div> + +<div class='nf-center-c0'> +<div class='nf-center c003'> + <div><span class='sc'>By G. F. Stout</span></div> + </div> +</div> + +<p class='c011'>What is the real attitude of those who call +themselves Christians and profess to accept the +teaching of the New Testament towards the Sermon +on the Mount and especially towards such +precepts as ‘Love your enemies’? That there +is here a huge and startling divergence between +theory and practice seems undeniable. It is +equally clear that the divergence is not merely +of the kind which unavoidably separates moral +ideals from the actual conduct of imperfect human +beings. For this only means that, because of the +frailty of human nature, we cannot, even with our +best endeavours, live up to the level of the moral +ideal; it does not mean that we refuse sincerely +to recognize the ideal as a practical guide—as +a standard to which good men will endeavour to +conform their actions as far as lies in their power. +But the precept ‘Love your enemies’ does not +seem to be generally recognized in this way as +a practical guide amid the stress and strain of +daily life. It is not even generally appealed to +as a standard for approving or condemning the +ordinary behaviour of men. It is not effectively +<span class='pageno' id='Page_104'>104</span>sanctioned by public opinion and sentiment. If +we inquire why this is so, there appear to be two +answers, vaguely and confusedly underlying the +position of common sense. The first is that any +sustained effort to pursue the ideal under the +actual conditions of human life is so impossible +that it is useless to attempt it. The second is +that if we did succeed in loving our enemies and +in acting as if we loved them, the result would +be disastrous; the good would be exposed without +defence to the forces of evil and life would no +longer be worth living. For one or both of these +reasons it seems to be tacitly assumed that in +practice we are justified in setting aside the precept +‘Love your enemies’ and in substituting for it +the precept ‘Love your friends and hate your +enemies’. At the same time it is generally +granted that under conditions different from ours +the rule of love would be universally applicable. +But this concession turns out on examination to +mean very little. For the state of things contemplated +under which we might be reasonably +expected to love our enemies seems to be one +under which our enemies would be prepared to +love us or might easily be induced to love us, and +this almost amounts to saying that we can only +be reasonably required to love our enemies when +there are no enemies for us to love.</p> + +<p class='c012'>This conflict between theory and practice +remains for the most part inarticulate and subconscious. +There is latent uneasiness; but the +problem is not definitely faced even by thoughtful +men. To bring it into clear consciousness a special +<span class='pageno' id='Page_105'>105</span>crisis is required. For many of us the present war +with its painful incidents and complications has +had this effect. Nor is it difficult to see why this +should be so. In war, or, at any rate, in such a war +as this, we devote all our energies to the task of +inflicting hurt, loss, and destruction on the enemy, +and he in his turn devotes all his energies to the +task of inflicting hurt, loss, and destruction on us. +Neither side, it would seem, can do this efficiently +without being sustained by strong and enduring +feeling. But this feeling can scarcely partake of +the nature of love. It must, it would seem, be an +emotion the reverse of this. Whether and in what +sense there can be an emotion opposed to love +which is yet not identified with hate, is a question +which I shall have to discuss later on. In any case, +it will scarcely be denied that the actual feeling +generated even in good and well-meaning men by +such conditions as those of the present war are +to a large extent to be classed as feelings of hatred. +When the enemy is held to have been guilty +of cruel and inhuman conduct contrary to the +recognized usage of civilized warfare, it seems to +be still more impossible to make any pretence of +loving the enemy or of doing anything but hate +the enemy. How can we love the authors and +perpetrators of the Belgian atrocities? Not only +is this attitude regarded as inevitable in war but +it is also felt to be justifiable in a special way by +the special conditions. It is taken to be justifiable +for reasons which are not in general applicable +to similar relations between private individuals. +One reason is that a private individual is in the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_106'>106</span>main protected against the grosser forms of injury +by the social order of the community to which +he belongs, by its laws and institutions, and by +public opinion and sentiment; to this extent he +has no need to take the law into his own hands. +In war this no longer holds good. We seem in +war to be reduced to the position of animals who +having directly to repel harm and aggression +themselves, need for that end the primitive and +instinctive emotion of blind anger which impels +them to hurt and destroy indiscriminately the +enemies who threaten their own destruction. It +is true that in war there is some protection against +certain forms of injury in what is called the +established usage of civilized warfare. But as we +know by recent experience, this safeguard cannot +be safely relied on; and it is just when even this +semi-legal protection fails, that we tend to give +full play to the feeling of hatred or analogous +feelings, with the sense that we are right in so +doing. Another obvious reason why we naturally +regard hatred of our enemies as especially justified +in the case of war is that here it is not our own +private injuries which we resent but injuries done +to the whole community of which we are members. +We are so much in the habit of connecting what +is morally wrong with selfishness that when there +is no selfishness, we tend to assume that there +can be nothing wrong or at any rate nothing +seriously wrong. Further, a benevolent disposition +towards the common enemy is felt as disloyalty +to our own people. It tends to awaken indignation +or disgust as revealing a want of patriotism. On +<span class='pageno' id='Page_107'>107</span>the other hand, the most unsparing hatred of the +common enemy, though we may more or less +condemn it on other grounds, is at least approved +as an expression of patriotism; and patriotism is +a virtue of all others most important and indispensable +in time of war. Hence even though we condemn +all hatred as such, yet if we cannot have the +most intense and efficient patriotism without it we +feel justified in preferring the two together.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Such considerations as these seem to make a +strong case for regarding hate, or at least some +emotion essentially akin to it, as an attitude which +may be often both unavoidable and justifiable in +dealing with our enemies, and more especially with +the enemies of our country in time of war. None +the less it remains true that this attitude is, prima +facie, very hard to reconcile with the spirit and +tendency of Christian morality, and particularly +with such precepts as ‘Love your enemies; bless +them that curse you; do good to them that +despitefully use you and persecute you’. Hence +all of us who, whatever may be our view of the +dogmas of Christian Theology, agree in accepting +the moral teaching of Christ as expressing the +highest human ideal, are placed in a difficult +position. It looks like a mere evasion and not +a solution of this difficulty to content ourselves +with saying that the Christian ideal, though it +is in itself the highest, cannot and ought not to +be pursued under the actual conditions of human +life. There are not two relatively independent and +separate kinds of truth, the theoretical and the +practical. What is false in practice must, to +<span class='pageno' id='Page_108'>108</span>that extent, be false in theory also. The highest +ideal is the ideal which we ought to endeavour to +pursue under all relevant conditions. There is +evidence that this is recognized by some Christians +who entertain no misgiving as to the righteousness +of the present war, and who are convinced of the +necessity of prosecuting it with the utmost zeal and +energy, and yet, at the same time, feel that it is +hard or impossible to do so while retaining for +the enemy anything akin to a Christian disposition. +We have here, perhaps, the most fundamental +reason why some conscientious men who, in general, +believe in prayer and in the efficacy of prayer, +none the less shrink from praying for the defeat +of the enemy in war. Other grounds are put +forward, but they seem valid in this particular +case only if they are valid against prayer in +general. It is urged, for instance, that God controls +the course of events in accordance with His own +wisdom and goodness, and that it is therefore +a futile impertinence to attempt to direct His +activity to what we erring mortals think best, +however sincere and well-meaning we may be. +Any petition, it is said, which is for our own ends +is condemned in advance, in so far as our own ends +are not His ends; and in so far as they do coincide +with His the petition is superfluous. Taken strictly, +this argument would cut at the root not only of all +prayer but of all human activity. For whatever +ends we pursue and by whatever means, it is +always possible that our aim does not coincide +with the divine purpose. It would follow, if the +<span class='pageno' id='Page_109'>109</span>argument were sound, that the truly religious +attitude would be to sit still with our hands +folded and let events take their course. The +fallacy lies in the assumption that what is best +in matters which concern human beings is determined +independently of the thoughts and feelings +of the human beings themselves. In particular, +it lies in the assumption that what is best for us +and for the world must be determined quite +independently of whether we pray for it or not.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Another reason urged against praying for success +in war is that good men on the other side are +praying for their own success and for our defeat +with a clear conscience and full belief in the +righteousness of their cause. What has been +called ‘the spectacle of serious men in opposite +camps raising their competitive prayers to the +one God’ may well appear to reduce to an +absurdity the prayers on both sides. Yet I do +not see that this consideration has any real weight. +For it is not asserted that good men ought to +refrain from using <em>other</em> ways of pursuing what +they are sincerely convinced is a good end, merely +because other good men with equal sincerity are +opposed to them. I can find no cogent reason +for making an exception in the case of prayer. +The use of prayer in a proper spirit can, at least, do +no harm. Further, it is to be remembered that +when prayer is offered in a right spirit, all special +petitions have behind them that general attitude of +mind which is expressed in the words ‘Thy Will +be done’. So far as this is so the agreement is +<span class='pageno' id='Page_110'>110</span>more fundamental than the opposition. The real +difficulty felt by tender consciences in praying for +success in war seems to me to be of a different +nature. What holds them back is their sense +that they cannot pray in that spirit which would +alone make their prayers acceptable, and that they +cannot even prevail on themselves to make a sincere +effort to attain this spirit. They feel that they +cannot appeal to God to be on their side unless, +in so far as lies in their power, they in the same +act endeavour to place themselves on the side of +God, to conform their will and their whole mental +attitude to His will as directed to what is highest +and best. But how is this possible when they not +only continue to harbour in their heart fierce and +embittered emotions, which appear irreconcilable +with the precept ‘Love your enemies’, but cling +to them in such a way that they cannot without +hypocrisy pretend to try to lay them aside or +even pray for deliverance from them? They feel +that under such conditions they would be appealing +not to the true God but to some partisan deity +such as the Kaiser must have had in view when he +spoke of God as ‘the constant ally of Prussia under +the Great Elector and the Great King’.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Let it be fully understood that I am not here +expressing any view concerning the justification +of prayer or the efficacy of prayer, or concerning +Christian doctrine or Christian morality. But if +we leave such questions entirely on one side, the +conception of prayer at least supplies us with a +useful mode of approaching our present problem. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_111'>111</span>For no feelings can be right feelings which in the +case of a man who really believes in prayer would +rightly debar him from seeking in his extreme +need the help of a Power whom he regards as all +wise and all good. We may, then, put our +question thus: How far is it true that feelings +of hatred or feelings in any way akin to hatred +ought to present a barrier of this kind? It is true +that what we gain by this mode of stating the +question is only a point of view which helps us to +grapple with it earnestly and thoroughly without +indulging in weak and illogical compromise. It +does not directly bring us any nearer to a solution. +For in order to determine what is acceptable to +God we must first determine what is good. Our +course would indeed be plain if we could take +such precepts as ‘Love your enemies’, so to speak +at their face value and treat them without further +discussion or interpretation as finally authoritative. +But even theologians, as such, for the most part +refuse to do this. Still less is it admissible that +I should do so. For I am trying to deal with the +problem on its own intrinsic merits without appeal +to authority. This being so I can proceed only +in one way. I must begin by asking what reasons +there are for holding that hatred and kindred +emotions are evil; then in the light of these +reasons I must attempt to determine in what +sense and without what limits, if there be any +limits, the general principle holds good. Here we +may look for some help to the great philosophers. +For some of these have maintained, on independent +<span class='pageno' id='Page_112'>112</span>grounds, the Christian doctrine in its general +spirit and tendency. Plato, for instance, holds +firmly that the maxim is entirely wrong which +bids us do good to our friends and harm to our +enemies. The righteous man, he insists, will in all +cases aim only at doing good, whether to enemies +or friends. Spinoza, too, lays down the principle +that ‘all hatred is evil’, and even attempts to +demonstrate it like a proposition in Euclid. There +is a Christian philosopher, Bishop Butler, who has +given us an admirable discussion of the whole +subject on rational grounds.</p> + +<p class='c012'>At this point I must prepare the ground for +further advance by expressing more exactly the +nature of the problem. So far, the question I have +raised is whether hatred and kindred emotions are +in all cases evil. But the tendency of ordinary +language is to associate the very word, hatred, +with some form of bad feeling. From this point +of view, to ask the question, Can hatred ever be +good? sounds like asking whether what is bad +can be good. But the real issue can easily be +stated so as to avoid this paradox. There is +a certain primitive and instinctive emotion called +anger, common to man and animals; in animals, +it tends to be excited by such conditions as overt +or threatened attack, painful wounds or blows, and +often by any kind of opposition or interference, or +by the threat of such opposition or interference, or +even by the mere presence of a natural enemy. +The real or threatened injury may be either to +the animal itself or to its young or its mate, or, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_113'>113</span>in the case of gregarious animals, to the community +of which it is a member. There is a modified and +restrained form of this passion which arises between +animals closely connected by social ties, as when +the mother slaps her young or the mother cat +boxes the kitten’s ears. But where the emotion +is aroused by an outsider there is in general no +such limitation. The impulse is blindly and +indiscriminately directed to damage and destroy. +By preference, of course, to damage and destroy the +enemy, and in the next place, whatever is in any +way associated with the enemy, but also beyond +this there is a general destructive impulse which +vents itself on whatever may encounter it. Consider, +for instance, the behaviour of a raging bull +or of a man who in his fury destroys furniture +and breaks crockery. Now, so far as animals are +concerned, this passion is not the subject either +of moral approval or disapproval. It is simply a +natural endowment like the teeth and claws of the +cat, or the venom of the snake, or the malodorous +secretion of the skunk. It has the biological +function of preserving the individual and the +species in the struggle for existence; but it has +no moral significance. The same holds good also +for a man, so far as he merely reacts like an +animal in a sudden and trying situation which +takes him by surprise. But it is quite otherwise +with complex human sentiments which are developed +from the primitive emotion of anger and +remain to the end essentially akin to it. In the +animal, the emotion occurs as a transient reaction +<span class='pageno' id='Page_114'>114</span>to a transient situation. In human beings it +passes into a variety of more or less permanent +dispositions or sentiments, which permeate and +control complex systems of thought and conduct. +Indeed, in some instances, such a disposition +may be the mainspring of organized thought and +action throughout a lifetime, as we see in the case +of Hannibal’s attitude to the Romans. Now the +question we have to deal with is this, Are all these +developed sentiments which have their root in +the primitive emotion of anger to be condemned +as evil; and if not, on what principle are we to +draw a distinction? If by the word <em>hatred</em> we +agree to mean all bad passions of this kind, then +the question will be, Are all angry sentiments and +dispositions to be classed as forms of hatred? In +dealing with this problem we have especially to +consider the state of things generated by war.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Our first step will be to examine the grounds for +regarding hatred as necessarily evil. We may then +proceed to inquire whether these grounds apply +to all forms of angry emotion which compel us to +hurt or destroy our fellow men. The reasons for +regarding hatred as evil seem all capable of being +brought under one head. Hatred is evil inasmuch +as it is blind, inasmuch as it perpetuates at a higher +level the original blind and undiscriminating +character of the primitive emotion of animal +anger. So far as this is the case, it is incompatible +with the development of the higher nature of +man as a rational being. The most fundamental +ground for this position is, perhaps, most clearly +<span class='pageno' id='Page_115'>115</span>stated by Spinoza. The supreme good for human +beings, he asserts, is to be found only in their +union and co-operation with each other. ‘Nothing +is more useful to a man than a man.’ It is only +with other men that a man can enter on that sort +of union which is necessary at once for his own +existence and development as a human being and +for theirs. ‘Except man we know of no particular +thing in nature in whose Mind we can rejoice. With +nothing else can we unite in friendship or in any kind +of social life’ (<cite>Eth.</cite> V. 14, App. § 26). Hence there +is a fundamental distinction between our relation +to human beings and to other things. In the case +of anything else, ‘A regard for our own welfare +does not require us to preserve it, but leads us +either to preserve or destroy it, or to adapt it to +our wants in any way according to the varied +uses of which it admits’ (ibid.). It is otherwise in +the case of human beings. To seek to destroy +them is virtually to seek to destroy ourselves. But +the passion of hatred blinds us to all this; it +blinds us to the fact that the essential good of man +is to be sought in union with his fellow men and +impels us to maintain disunion with them and to +seek our highest good in hurting and destroying +them. Nor is it only in its consequences that +hatred as such is evil. As contrary to the rational +nature of man, as blinding him to his true good, +it works like a disease or a cancerous growth in +the soul of those who feel it. ‘Nothing can be so +good for a man as such a temper of mind as will +unite him with’ his fellow men and them with +<span class='pageno' id='Page_116'>116</span>him; while nothing on the contrary can be so +bad for him or in him as that which sets him and +them at variance. All hatred, then, is evil and +there can be no greater evil.</p> + +<p class='c012'>All this applies to hatred of the enemy in war. +Indeed the evil is the greater because the hatred +is between great and highly organized communities +instead of between individuals. There is, however, +one fact which tends to veil and disguise the evil +of hatred in this case. War disunites nations, +but within each nation it strengthens union and +mutual co-operation. Now this in itself is good. +But it is not good, if and so far as the source of +unity is participation in a common hatred. To +this extent the nation is in the position of the +individual hater and is blinded as he is to its own +true good. Speaking broadly, just in so far as +war leads a nation to treat what is good for it as +essentially separate from and opposed to what is +good for other nations and for mankind in general, +war does that nation harm. The history of +Germany illustrates this sufficiently. The root of +the mischief is to be sought far back in the horrible +Thirty Years’ War. But subsequent wars have +served to keep it alive—the Seven Years’ War, the +Napoleonic War, and above all, that process of +cementing the German Empire with blood and +iron which Bismarck artificially and violently +substituted for the natural development which +was leading to the same result in a better form. +The Franco-Prussian War belongs to the same +series. It is an easily intelligible and even an +<span class='pageno' id='Page_117'>117</span>excusable result of the course of German history +that national sentiment in Germany has come half-unconsciously +to treat even peace as if it were +a state of suppressed and disguised warfare, and +to feel no security for its national existence and +national development unless the mailed fist is +continually shaken in the face of its enemies in the +East and in the West, and unless it is continually +prepared to pounce on them before they can pounce +on it. It has now actually pounced in what is +called a preventive war. The temper and attitude +which led to this result is essentially what I found +some thirty years ago generally diffused among +the common people of Berlin and especially among +old soldiers of the Franco-Prussian War: men’s +minds were dwelling on the necessity of a reckoning +with Russia, and of a renewed humiliation of +France; there was deep hostility to England +mingled with contempt for our ways of thinking +and acting and with jealousy of our undeserved +riches and prosperity. This attitude of mind has in +one way had its reward. In the present struggle +the Germans started better prepared for war than +their opponents. But for this advantage they +have paid and are likely to pay very dearly. You +may be inclined to say ‘Serve them right’. But if +this is taken to imply that the German people is +much worse by nature in this respect than other +peoples I must disagree. I doubt whether under +like historical conditions any people would have +done better.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Hatred, we have said, is bad because it is +<span class='pageno' id='Page_118'>118</span>blind; and fundamentally the blindness consists in +failure to recognize the true good of man in mutual +union and co-operation. But there are many other +subordinate ways in which its essential blindness +is manifested. To hate is to view the actions +and characters of others through a medium which +falsifies and distorts. To quote Bishop Butler, +‘the whole character and behaviour of those we +hate is considered with an eye to that particular +part which has offended us, and the whole man +appears monstrous without anything right or +human in him’. Hatred in fact seeks only its own +appropriate food and disregards or rejects whatever +does not sustain its own life and development. +We can see this clearly enough in the attitude of our +enemies towards ourselves. We can see, for instance, +how hard it is for the German mind, at the present +moment, to think anything that is good of England +and Englishmen; how hard, for instance, they +find it to admit that we are really patriotic, that +our soldiers are anything but hirelings, actuated +by merely mercenary motives, or that they can +fight efficiently, or that even our fleet is anything +but a pretentious sham. But to the reflective +observer it is plain enough that a similar disposition +prevails, though not, I hope, in the same +degree, among ourselves. Are we prepared to +consider fairly the possibility that the Germans +in entering on the present war were actuated by +motives which were not wholly bad, or that they +really feared and believed that the neutrality +of Belgium would be violated by France, or in +<span class='pageno' id='Page_119'>119</span>general that they feared and believed with what +seemed to them good reason that unless they took +the initiative by a preventive war, they themselves +would be attacked and taken at a disadvantage?</p> + +<p class='c012'>Hatred not only blinds us to what may be +favourable to the enemy; it also blinds us to +whatever may be wrong in our own feelings and +behaviour towards them. It tends to place the +blame all on one side. This, as we know, is very +rarely the case. It is very unlikely to be the case +in a war between great civilized nations. The +present war is, I am fully convinced, most just +and necessary. Yet I also believe that faults on our +side have indirectly contributed in some degree to +prepare the way for it.<a id='r22'></a><a href='#f22' class='c013'><sup>[22]</sup></a></p> + +<p class='c012'>I shall mention only one more of the manifold +ways in which hate leads to blindness. It shrinks +from any serious and impartial endeavour to +trace the evil which offends it to the conditions +which may account for it and render it intelligible. +The impulse of hate is not to understand, but to +destroy. To inquire into conditions and to seek +an explanation would only divert and distract it. +It prefers, therefore, to concentrate itself on the +persons hated as if they were the sole ultimate +sources of the evil, as if the evil were due merely +to their intrinsic and spontaneous badness. It is +this attitude of mind which leads us to turn away +with impatience from any attempt to explain, +for instance, the Belgian atrocities so as to make +<span class='pageno' id='Page_120'>120</span>it intelligible how they could be committed or +condoned by a people who in their original human +nature are not so very different from ourselves. +The attempt to explain is treated as an attempt +to explain away, and resented as if it were a justification +or defence or denial of fact.</p> + +<p class='c012'>My general position is that hatred is bad inasmuch +as it is blind, and I am unable to discover +anything else which justifies us in treating it as +necessarily evil. The question is whether all +sentiments and emotions partaking of the nature +of anger are to be condemned on this account. +Ought we to set before us, as our ideal, freedom +from all such emotions and sentiments, and the +substitution of other motives for them? Let us +provisionally suppose that this is the ideal, and +examine how it would work if it were consistently +followed. In the first place we must consider +how we should proceed in attempting to realize +the ideal. It may be suggested that we should +follow invariably in all cases the rule ‘Overcome +evil with good’. Now there may be a sense in +which this rule is universally applicable and ought +to be universally applied. But in the common and +obvious interpretation of it, this is plainly untrue. +As commonly interpreted, it means that we ought +not to hurt or destroy the evildoer, and that +instead of this we ought to appeal to his better +nature by showing goodwill and kindness towards +him. This is, of course, infinitely the best way +where it can be followed effectively and followed +effectively without incurring greater evils than it +<span class='pageno' id='Page_121'>121</span>has any reasonable chance of curing. But these +limiting conditions are very important. They +would clearly apply, for instance, in case of an +attack by scalp-hunting Red Indians on a family +of peaceful settlers. In general, the words ‘Overcome +evil with good’ are to be taken as qualified +by the preceding words ‘Be not overcome of evil’. +If and so far as we can overcome evil without being +overcome of evil, it is our duty to do so, otherwise it +is not. It may, however, still be maintained that, +though it is admittedly often right and necessary +to inflict pain, hurt, and destruction on evildoers, +yet we ought not to do this in the spirit of anger. +We ought rather to act purely out of regard for +the highest attainable good, and we ought to +inflict pain and damage on evildoers only as +a necessary means to this end and not out of any +angry emotion we may feel towards them.</p> + +<p class='c012'>This is the general position of Spinoza when he +asserts as a universal principle that all ‘hatred +is bad’. It may seem a lofty and noble position. +But it is not enough for a moral ideal to appear +lofty and noble when we contemplate it vaguely +in the abstract. It must be in such direct contact +with the actual conditions of human life as to +afford constant practical guidance in dealing with +these. Judged by this standard the proposed +principle seems to break down. It requires us +in dealing with the malevolence of human beings +to be actuated merely by love of good, not at all +by resentment against the evildoer. Our mental +attitude ought, on this view, to be always that +<span class='pageno' id='Page_122'>122</span>assumed by the Quaker in <cite>Uncle Tom’s Cabin</cite> who +pushed the slave-driver over the precipice and +explained his action by the words ‘Friend, thou +art not wanted here’. The fundamental objection +to this is that love of anything implies and includes +a corresponding feeling of aversion to whatever is +recognized as opposed to what we love or destructive +of what we love. The love of health, for +instance, implies and includes aversion to disease +wherever we meet disease and recognize it as such. +It does not, of course, imply that we must be +angry with disease, but that is because we do +not love health in the same way as we love what +is good in human beings and in the personal +relations of human beings to each other. Just as +the sentiment of love varies in its nature with +the nature of its object, there is a corresponding +difference in the aversion which is its counterpart. +Where the evil is malevolence, where it is an +evil will directed to injustice, cruelty, and selfish +aggression, the appropriate correlate of love +to the good is some form of anger with the evil. +And this must mean anger with the evildoer. +It is not satisfactory to say that we may feel +aversion to what is evil in a man and only kindness +towards the man himself. This is to overlook the +central fact that the evil in this case is an expression +of the man’s personal will and character +which cannot be separated from himself. Nor +can we substitute sorrow for anger. Sorrow is +appropriate to misfortune, but intentional injury +is not merely a misfortune which happens to +<span class='pageno' id='Page_123'>123</span>befall the person who inflicts it. To feel towards +it as if it were merely a misfortune is to be more +or less blind to its true nature. In consequence, +when sorrow takes the place of anger, it fails to +give rise to efficient action; the tendency is to +mourn over the offender where rebuke and punishment +are required by the situation.</p> + +<p class='c012'>In actual life, we find some who, owing either to +their nature or to their circumstances and education, +are but little susceptible of angry emotion; +in such persons we find also a corresponding failure +to understand or believe in the malicious attitude +of mind in which intentional injuries have their +source. They turn aside from the evidence or +interpret it in their own one-sided way. An extreme +instance is that of Charles Lamb’s friend, George +Dyer, who, as Lamb tells us, could find nothing +more severe to say about the worst criminals than +that they must have been very eccentric. So far +as I can make out, I belong myself to this class, +though not to the same extent as Lamb’s friend. +I naturally skip such passages in the newspapers as +these which describe German atrocities in Belgium. +I refuse to read even official reports. I put myself +off by hoping that in the main they are not true, +or that they are greatly exaggerated, or that they +can be explained so as to cast another light on +them. Yet I have been gradually forced to believe +in their reality by evidence which I cannot +reasonably resist. Persons of this type do very +well so long as they live a sheltered life, spent, for +instance, in study. But they are unfit to grapple +<span class='pageno' id='Page_124'>124</span>effectively with certain forms of evil or really to +appreciate their nature or fully to recognize their +existence. There are other men who, though they +are by nature fully susceptible of angry sentiments, +suppress them on principle, because they regard +them as wrong and especially because they are +afraid of giving way to hatred. So far as concerns +those whom they recognize as their personal +enemies or as the enemies of the society to which +they belong, their mental attitude and behaviour +tends to resemble more or less those of the type +of men who are naturally deficient in angry sentiments. +But they are likely to differ from these +in an important respect. In their anxiety to be +fair and benevolent to enemies, they are likely to +be unfair and harsh to their friends. In opposing +the natural tendency to regard the faults all on +one side, that of the enemy, they tend to run to +the opposite extreme and to make out that it +is their own side which is wholly or mainly or at +least equally to blame in cases where an impartial +consideration of the evidence would show the +contrary. Thus, with them natural sentiments of +anger tend to creep in, as it were, by a back door. +The phrase ‘friends of every country but their own’ +is often most unfairly applied. But there are cases +in which it is more or less applicable; and it +applies appropriately to the type of persons I have +described.</p> + +<p class='c012'>My conclusion, then, is that some developed +forms of the primitive emotion of anger are +necessary and right. But how are we to determine +<span class='pageno' id='Page_125'>125</span>what these are? How are we to draw the line +between them and these forms of angry passion +which are condemned under the general head of +hatred or malevolence? After the previous discussion, +there need be no difficulty as regards the +principle upon which we have to proceed. Hatred +is bad only because it is blind and in so far as it +is blind, just as the weakly amiable spirit is bad +for the same reason. On the other hand, what +we call just resentment or righteous indignation, +though it is akin to hatred as being, like it, +developed from the primitive emotion of anger, +is good inasmuch as it is enlightened—inasmuch +as it is free from the various forms of blindness +which characterize hatred. Here, of course, the +fundamental blindness, which we must do all that +in us lies to avoid, is blindness to the highest good +of humanity as consisting in union and co-operation. +Righteous indignation or just resentment, +as felt against the enemy of social order, ought +to be merely the obverse aspect, the necessary +counterpart, of the spirit which pursues union and +co-operation as its supreme end. So far as we +are willing and able to follow this principle, we +cannot go wrong.</p> + +<p class='c012'>This does not imply that justifiable resentment +is necessarily weaker or less intense than hatred. +The distinction is not one of degree. Justifiable +resentment is not a fainter form of hatred. It is +not, so to speak, hatred watered down. So long +as it is not blind, there is no general limit to its +strength, persistence, or intensity. This must be +<span class='pageno' id='Page_126'>126</span>proportioned to the varying conditions. In any +case, just resentment will cease when it is no +longer required by the actual situation. Hatred, +on the contrary, tends to persist blindly.</p> + +<p class='c012'>The theoretical principle on which we must +proceed may be defined in this way. But its +practical application is, of course, very difficult. +It is hard to ‘be angry and sin not’, to be righteously +resentful and yet to avoid the blindness +of hate. Yet, however far we may be compelled +to fall short of our ideal, we should consistently +endeavour to keep this ideal in view as our supreme +practical guide and as the measure of our failure +and success. Here a great help ought to be found +in prayer by those who believe in prayer and who +realize that in prayer they are approaching a Being +who is completely good and wise. In any case we +must here, as elsewhere, be willing to take risks; +and though the converse is more usual, it may +sometimes be better to run the risk of being +actuated by hatred than to run the alternative +risk of not feeling due resentment.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Let us now turn to a question of fact. How far +is it true that we hate the Germans and that the +Germans hate us? As regards the Germans there +would seem to be no room for doubt. They loudly +tell us that they hate us and make a parade of their +hatred. But it is easy to attach too much importance +to this self-conscious and deliberate working +up of an emotion and theatrical display of it. The +best comment is supplied by the picture in <cite>Punch</cite> +of a German family practising hatred of England +<span class='pageno' id='Page_127'>127</span>before breakfast with appropriate attitudes and +grimaces. The same holds good for the song of +hatred. It is a spirited composition. But I am +not inclined to take very seriously the kind of +hatred which finds lyric expression of this sort. In +such manifestoes we come upon the sentimentality +so characteristic of the Germans, the romantic side +of the German character. The more serious forms +of hatred are rather those which do not fully +examine and express themselves in this fashion. +The real question is, How far have our angry +passions a blinding influence in practice? Certainly +there is abundant evidence that the Germans are +blinded in this way. The belief is widespread +among them that the key to our conduct is throughout +to be sought in one master motive, the love +of gain. They charge us with pursuing our +ignoble ends by sly and underhand means, veiled +under hypocritical pretence. They are convinced, +for instance, that our horror and resentment at the +brutal attack on Belgium was merely simulated, +and that throughout we care for nothing but our +own self-interest. They also charge us as a nation +with a failure in the patriotic spirit which subordinates +the interest of individuals and parties +and classes to the good of the whole. They find +in us an irresponsible frivolity and easy-going self-complacency +which make us entirely undeserving +of the position which we claim among civilized +nations. On the other hand, they entertain no +doubt that in all these ways in which we come +short, they themselves are very strong, and that +<span class='pageno' id='Page_128'>128</span>they, therefore, have a natural right to supplant +us. Now I am far from saying that there is no +foundation for some at least of the bad things +which the Germans believe about us. But the +sweeping and utterly indiscriminate way in which +they hold these beliefs is obviously due to the blinding +influence of hatred and kindred sentiments. +That we on our side are similarly blinded admits, +I think, of no doubt. We are convinced, for very +cogent reasons, that our enemies deliberately +brought on this war when they might honourably +and safely have maintained peace. I do not +believe that we are at all blind on this point. +But our natural resentment does, I think, tend +to obscure our view of the underlying motives for +conduct which in any case cannot be justified. +No doubt, a spirit of aggression, fostered by +the German military system and by German +traditions, was the most important factor. But +we are apt to overlook the fact that fear also +was a strong motive, fear of rival nations with +antagonistic interests falling upon them and +taking them at a disadvantage. Another error to +which we are naturally prone is found in the +assumption that what seems evident to us must be +evident to our opponents. To us it is clear that +the aggression is on their side. But the great body +of the German people, including the best men +among them, are convinced that it is they who are +the victims and we who are the aggressors. Their +natural leaders have assured them that this is the +case, and have so stated the facts as to make it +<span class='pageno' id='Page_129'>129</span>appear so; and this view found ready acceptance +because of that attitude of suspicious fear to which +I have just alluded. The picture which we are apt +to make for ourselves of a whole people rushing to +arms merely in order to make an unprovoked onslaught +on its neighbours is certainly a false one, +which we could not entertain unless we were more or +less blinded by hate. I find further evidence of the +same blindness in much of the current talk about +the necessity of crushing Germany. So far as this +means that we ought to do our work so thoroughly +that it will not need to be done over again it is fully +justified. But if the meaning is that the best or +the only way of effecting this is by destroying +the national existence of Germany, it seems to +me that we are being misled by our passions. +However good our case may be in this quarrel, we +shall put ourselves in the wrong if we reduce our +adversary to a position in which it becomes his +absolute duty to lose sight of all other considerations +in the bare struggle for existence. Again, +I do not think that we at all realize how much we +should miss Germany if there were no Germany. +Omitting other most important considerations, it +is very far from clear that the political situation +as regards the balance of power in Europe would +be at all improved by such a change. Besides +this, we do not sufficiently consider whether it +lies in our power to crush Germany in the way +proposed, or, if it does, whether the attempt may +not cost us too dear.</p> + +<p class='c012'>In another direction, the blindness of hate finds +<span class='pageno' id='Page_130'>130</span>expression in the present tendency to depreciate +German literature, science, and philosophy. Some +of the things which are now being said on this +topic I largely agree with. I have long held that +the value of the German contribution to literature, +science, and even philosophy has been seriously +over-estimated as compared with that of other +nations. But much of the current talk on this +subject is hopelessly undiscriminating and exaggerated. +In any case, it is amusing to find men talking +in this vein who would never have thought of +doing so if there had been no war. Our being at +war with Germany can scarcely make any difference, +one would think, to the greatness of Goethe +or of Hegel.</p> + +<p class='c011'>In conclusion, let me go back to my starting-point. +What are we to say finally concerning +the precept ‘Love your enemies’? Is there any +sense in which it is of universal application? I +think there may be. It must not, of course, be +taken to mean that we are to love our enemies +with what Bishop Butler calls ‘a peculiar affection’. +There are many who are not our enemies +for whom we can feel no peculiar affection. +Besides, if we love our enemies in this sense, +what, as Confucius is said to have inquired, are we +to do in the case of our friends? But if we take +the meaning to be—Will good to your enemy +rather than evil, the rule may, under a certain +condition, be regarded as universally applicable. +If we accept Plato’s doctrine that it is better for +<span class='pageno' id='Page_131'>131</span>the evildoer himself that he should suffer punishment +than that he should go unpunished, it seems +possible, however difficult in practice, to inflict +pain and hurt on him while retaining goodwill +towards him in the very act of doing so. From this +point of view, failure to feel just resentment and +express it in action is an injury to the evildoer +himself as well as to others. But is it always +better for the evildoer himself to be punished? +If it makes him a better man, we may agree that +this is so. But so far as we can see, it sometimes has +the reverse effect. If we are to justify the principle +in its widest generality, we must go beyond what +we can see. We must postulate a moral order or +something equivalent to a moral order in the +universe according to which it is always in some +way ultimately better for the evildoer to be +punished than to escape punishment. If this is +Christian doctrine, then Christianity may consistently +maintain the universal application of +the maxim, ‘Love your enemies.’</p> + +<div class='chapter'> + <span class='pageno' id='Page_132'>132</span> + <h2 class='c005'>VI<br> <span class='c010'>PATRIOTISM IN THE PERFECT STATE</span></h2> +</div> + +<div class='nf-center-c0'> +<div class='nf-center c003'> + <div><span class='sc'>By B. Bosanquet</span></div> + </div> +</div> + +<p class='c011'>The quality of patriotism is determined by what +we desire for our country, as the quality of friendship +is determined by what we desire for our +friend. And this question—the question what it +is that we desire for our country—is of supreme +moment to-day, because in the answer given to it, +whether by practice or in principle, are rooted the +permanent underlying conditions of war and peace.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Assuming then that what is true of principles +is true of the corresponding practice, whether or +no the actors understand what they are doing, +I will ask you to consider with me three typical +ideas expressive of what men desire for their +country, each of them bearing a distinctive relation +to the causes and customs of war, and to +the permanent basis of peace.</p> + +<p class='c012'>And in this consideration I hope that we shall +also be elucidating an interesting question in the +history of recent thought. We shall see how the +splendid political philosophy of Germany a hundred +years ago has passed on the one hand into her +intoxication of to-day, while on the other hand, +elsewhere, in face of a more liberal experience, +it has found a decisive completion in a human and +democratic sense. The three conceptions to which +<span class='pageno' id='Page_133'>133</span>I refer have very much in common, and a great +part of the interest of our inquiry, and also perhaps +a little practical value which it might possess, +depends on noticing very precisely the points at +which distinctions become blurred, and the ideas, +mostly by mere omission, are apt to slide into one +another.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Let us make a beginning, then, with Hegel’s +political thought, the German thought of a hundred +years ago. At that time the idea of a man’s +country, as focussed in the state, was a glorious +vision, stimulated largely by Greek conceptions +and drawing something from English constitutional +experience; while in the existing reality of the +Prussian system there was little to catch the eye, +and little power, therefore, to narrow the outlook.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Now the essential point for us here to grasp +firmly, if we wish to enter into the truth of the +matter and its adjacent fallacies, is that Hegel +means by the state, not the machine of government, +but all that fulfils, in the actual community, +the individual’s mind and will. The individual is +supposed to see in it the form of life, and more than +that, the particular form of sentiment and volition, +which his nation has so far worked out for itself, +and in which he, the private person, finds the substance +of his own mind, and what unites him with +others. It includes, of course, the ethical tradition +of the society, with the observances and institutions +in which it is embodied and preserved; and +more especially it is identified with the general will +as expressed in the laws and the political constitution. +<span class='pageno' id='Page_134'>134</span>The state, in short, is the ark in which the +whole treasure of the individual citizen’s head and +heart is preserved and guarded within a world +which may be disorderly and hostile.</p> + +<p class='c012'>One may naturally ask, where then does +humanity come in, and how recognize the claims +of other nations and persons? This is exceedingly +important, but not difficult. Your country is held +to express the whole form of life for which you +stand, and therefore, within that, your moral +attitude to humanity and the world in general. +If you are an Englishman, you probably object to +slavery. But that attitude is not a thing of +chance, in which you stand outside your age and +country. It is part of the outlook at which, on +the whole, England had at a certain time arrived, +and which came to individual Englishmen through +their participation in the national mind. Here is +a point at which a slide into fallacy is too possible. +That moral view of the world which you and your +state stand up for is one thing. A moral view +which considers only your own and your state’s +immediate interests is quite another thing; but +it is very easy to confuse the two, both in practice +and in controversy.</p> + +<p class='c012'>We have said enough to indicate the value which, +according to such ideas, the private individual, in +theory or by practice, recognizes in his state. +Looked at in this way, our country, the state, is +simply all we have. Innumerable claims may +come to us from outside, but they all come through +it and subject to it; just as they all come to us +<span class='pageno' id='Page_135'>135</span>through our own feelings and our own beliefs. +Without the state we are nothing and nobody. It +is for us the vehicle of the value of the world. It +stands for our contribution to the general sum of +what humanity has achieved and what makes any +life worth living.</p> + +<p class='c012'>So far what we desire for our country, our view +of its mission, is to achieve the very best we all are +capable of becoming. But there is another side +to this same set of ideas.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Obviously, to fulfil this, its necessary mission, +the state needs above all things to be <em>strong</em>. Men +who had lived through Napoleonic times could +have no doubt about that. Who indeed was to +help a state if it could not help itself? War, then, +was the inevitable arbiter, and by the test of war +the state must stand or fall. Hegel is primarily +appealing to facts when he says that outside the +several communities there is no general will. As yet +there could not be; for the general will <em>is</em> the will +of a community, backed by its whole body, mind, +and sentiment. Thus, no one can possibly dictate +into what demands separate states shall throw +their ultimate honour and self-assertion; and if +in these they conflict there is no ultimate solution +but war. On one side, we have seen, the state is +akin to art, philosophy, and religion; it is mind in +a concentrated form. But between it and these +other shapes of mind there is the one fundamental +distinction. The state is mind ‘in the world’. It +is not only our treasure, but it is the ark which +carries our treasure. ‘In the world’ right can +<span class='pageno' id='Page_136'>136</span>only prevail through might. Strength in war is +therefore the first condition of the state’s fulfilment +of its function; and being the first condition, and +a condition peculiar to the state among the forms +of mind, it is too easily taken as the aim and whole +upshot of the state. This again, as we shall see, +is a point at which one idea is apt to slide into +another.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Therefore, since as yet there can be, outside +and above the several states, no general will with +a common heart and force, no ‘praetor’—judge +representing power—but only at best an ‘arbitrator’, +all international laws, treaties, and usages +are, at bottom, only agreements of a number of +particular wills, the wills of absolute independent +bodies. <em>So far</em> nations are to one another, as older +writers had said, in a state of nature, like the supposed +(but quite imaginary) individuals before +Society was invented. Hegel does not say that +there cannot be, and are not, humane usages, conventions, +rules, and treaties. The whole of international +law rests on the principle that treaties are +to be observed. But behind all this there is the +sheer fact of the separate individual powers, each +absolute in its limited area; so that, at bottom, +the whole fabric of international rules and customs +is just an agreement of separate wills, and not an +expression of a single general will. Ultimately, +or fundamentally, each of these separate wills is +and must be determined by its own conception of +its own welfare. This is the difficulty I think in +the way of leagues and federations in favour of +<span class='pageno' id='Page_137'>137</span>peace as suggested by Kant and by Norman +Angell. They are purely <em>de facto</em>. They do not +rest upon the spirit of a solid community; and +every powerful league tends <em>ipso facto</em> to raise up +a powerful counter-league against it, with grave +risk of war.</p> + +<p class='c012'>It follows from this that there is a fundamental +distinction between the moral position of the +private individual who works out the detail of his +duty on the basis of recognized rights within a +previously ordered and organized society, and +that of the state, which has ‘in the world’ to +provide and sustain, at all hazards, the organized +society within which the individual is to live. +The tasks of morals and of international politics +are different in principle, though the end to which +they co-operate is the same. The immediate task of +morals is to live a life, that of international politics +is to provide a world within which life can be lived.</p> + +<p class='c012'>The same distinction must be pushed beyond +the difference of the tasks into the difference of +their possibility. For the private individual it is +fairly easy, in the main, at least to <em>know</em> what he +should do, and what he should not. He lives +within a scheme of recognized rights and obligations; +and, starting from his legal position and +accepted duties, he can tell whether he is behaving +selfishly or generously, rudely or courteously, +kindly or unkindly. His lawyer will tell him his +legal rights; and it is for him to insist upon them +or to surrender them. But in principle the state +has no such guide. It is not living out an ordered +<span class='pageno' id='Page_138'>138</span>life, within a recognized scheme. It cannot tell +whether it is being less than just, or merely just, +or kind and generous. For it every case is under +altering conditions and new, and it is sole judge +in its own cause. A state may think that it is +behaving with superhuman generosity, while its +antagonist may think it is behaving like a bandit. +There is no complete or detailed scheme and scale +of conduct and sentiment to operate as a norm of +feeling and judgement. Of course this language +may seem exaggerated in face of the well-established +usages of international law, and the existence of +treaties. But the difference we have mentioned +affects them all. <em>Ultimately</em>, to reiterate that +terrible adverb, which governs the whole argument, +it is as we say. A private person has the letter +and spirit of his moral world to live up to, and on +the main lines and choices of life there is a wealth +of recognized obligations which, I do not say tell +him what to do, but certainly warn him what he is +doing. A state is sailing a sea but slightly charted, +and what marks the charts do furnish are mostly +recent and depend on a revocable consent. As +a supreme power, it has a responsibility for every +choice, of which no precedents nor external recommendations +can divest it. At every step it is +making a new world.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Thus, in such an idea of patriotism as we have +been describing, the attitude to war is favourable +on the whole. There is, it suggests, an element in +the world which is transitory and accidental, the +element of temporal life and temporal goods. It +<span class='pageno' id='Page_139'>139</span>is natural and necessary that accident should prey +upon the accidental, and that contingent values +should thus be distinguished from substantial. +War is the fiery test of reality, and the maker of +nations. ‘In the world’ accident is necessary +and has its good. Here is a striking passage; not +a complete survey of the question, but, I think, +requiring consideration, and showing the conviction +embodied in the attitude we have tried to portray:</p> + +<blockquote>‘Of course, war brings insecurity of possessions, +but this actual insecurity is only a necessary movement. +We hear from the pulpit so much of the +uncertainty, vanity, and fickleness of temporal +things; but every one thinks as he hears it, however +touching may be the eloquence, “<em>I</em> shall +manage to keep what is mine”. But now if this +uncertainty confronts them in grim earnest in +the shape of hussars with naked sabres, then the +touching spirit of edification, in the face of +the very thing it foretold, betakes itself to hurling +curses at the victors. But in spite of all, wars +take place when the occasion demands it; the +crops grow again; and babble is mute before the +grim iterations of history.’<a id='r23'></a><a href='#f23' class='c013'><sup>[23]</sup></a></blockquote> + +<p class='c012'>Before leaving these ideas of a hundred years +ago, it is worth while to note the general temper +of intellectual Germany in that great age. It was +full, no doubt, of self-assertion, not unbecoming +to a nation conscious of immense capacities. But +it was sympathetic and receptive. No men ever +worked harder to educate themselves in the widest +experience of humanity than Goethe and his +<span class='pageno' id='Page_140'>140</span>contemporaries. Their feeling is fairly expressed +in some verses addressed by Schiller to Goethe, +on the exceptional occasion of a play by Voltaire +being performed at the Weimar theatre. We see +in them the delicate balance of self-assertion and +receptivity. Here is a rough version:</p> + +<div class='lg-container-b c014'> + <div class='linegroup'> + <div class='group'> + <div class='line'>To home-born art this stage is consecrated,</div> + <div class='line'>No more are stranger idols worshipped here;</div> + <div class='line'>The laurel we display with heart elated</div> + <div class='line'>On <em>our</em> poetic mount its growth did rear;</div> + <div class='line'>To art’s high fane, himself initiated,</div> + <div class='line'>Boldly the German genius has drawn near;</div> + <div class='line'>And on the track of Briton and of Greek</div> + <div class='line'>Has set his face a purer fame to seek.</div> + </div> + </div> +</div> + +<p class='c012'>The Briton and the Greek are Shakespeare and +Aristotle, or perhaps the Greek Tragedians. And +the same types of experience, English and Hellenic, +were at work in the conception of patriotism we +have portrayed. It is not, Hegel says, emphatically, +the mere occasional readiness for extreme sacrifices. +It is the recognition of the community as our substance +throughout all the detailed functions of life. +We shall further see the supreme value of this +apparently prosaic view.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Now we need not add many words in explaining +how this attitude of the great time has degenerated +into the creed of violence and self-interest of which +we hear to-day. It is essentially the passage of +a large and many-sided philosophical doctrine +into the hands of ignorant and biased amateurs, +soldiers, historians, politicians.<a id='r24'></a><a href='#f24' class='c013'><sup>[24]</sup></a> Well, all philosophy +<span class='pageno' id='Page_141'>141</span>is dangerous, for it blinks no side of the +truth, and any one of its statements, taken by +itself and with bias, may act as a mighty strong +wine or as a high explosive.</p> + +<p class='c012'>It is enough to recall the two points in the great +German philosophy at which we noted how readily +one idea slides into another. One is where it says +that a state is and can be determined only by its +own good. We tried to explain that the thing is +a truism. Its good is the form of life and feeling +which it has made and chosen, and includes its +relations to others. But if for good (Wohl) you +read exclusive self-interest, the thing is done. +A great idea slides before your eyes into the +meanest of worldly maxims. So with the other +point. As guardian of a treasure, the state must +<span class='pageno' id='Page_142'>142</span>be strong in war. But it is different when you say +that its strength in war sets it free to sully at its +will the treasure it has to guard.</p> + +<p class='c012'>To make these two transitions is the same thing +as to drop out from the conception of patriotism +all that we said about the positive values of which +the state is guardian. In a huge country, intoxicated +with its new material prosperity, and even +in the realm of intellect so busy with myriad +specialities as to be deafened to voices from without +by the clamour of its own contending schools, such +a transition seems almost natural.</p> + +<p class='c012'>But yet, when this transition is made, the public +conscience, the compass of the difficult voyage, is +gone. Everything depended on its recognition of +the supreme values within its own good; and the +change leaves them as mere names for whatever +can be effected by force. And now, all the <em>de +facto</em> truths which the great philosophy conceded +with regard to international conventions return +upon us with crushing force. You can find +parallels in Hegel, as we saw, for much of the language, +e. g., of the <cite>Book of War</cite>, about mere usages +and conventions. The only difference is that the +national conscience—which makes Hegel say, for +instance, that Europe is in actual humane behaviour +a single family—the national conscience is now +deleted from the theory.</p> + +<p class='c012'>So by mere omission and exaggeration, this great +idea of patriotism is totally perverted, and we are +brought to the point that what a man desires +for his country is military supremacy to be used +<span class='pageno' id='Page_143'>143</span>without scruple in the promotion of its exclusive +interest.</p> + +<p class='c012'>This was the second of the three attitudes or +ideas of patriotism which we meant to consider. +We have observed how it might arise by a heated +and narrowed conception of the first, under the +intoxication of new achievements, leading to new +temptations and ambitions.</p> + +<p class='c012'>But now, recurring for a moment to the philosophy +of the great time, let us consider a third +expression of patriotism, to which it has given rise +in a wholly different atmosphere.</p> + +<p class='c012'>It was a conviction, held in common by the two +forms of patriotism we have been considering, that +war is a necessary accident, arising out of the very +nature of the state as a separate sovereign power +exposed to accident, and therefore, something to +which a state is liable because and in as far as it is +what a state should be. Now a great deal in this +idea may seem to us a truism. States <em>are</em> particular +independent bodies, themselves sole ultimate judges +of their differences and their honour. No independent +state (as Pericles said) <em>will</em> brook an order +from another state; if it does, its independence is +gone. And on such a point there can be no arbitration. +War <em>is</em> the ultimate arbiter, and therefore +springs from this very nature of states; and it +<em>does</em> behove states to be strong. And for war, as +for all other evils and accidents, there <em>is</em> a good deal +to be said. Each of them by itself is clearly a thing +to be fought against, but without any of them at +all—well, life would very soon generate new ones.</p> + +<p class='c012'><span class='pageno' id='Page_144'>144</span>But a further question has been raised, and seems +worth pursuing. Is not a wrong done somewhere, +when lives are sacrificed in war? Certainly it is +not murder, for it is not unlawful killing; but +again, it is not merely like an earthquake. It +comes from human conduct somewhere and somewhen. +We may not be able to apportion the guilt +of it, but it might be worth inquiry whether the +conduct could not be changed. Perhaps our +analysis has hitherto not gone far enough. <em>After</em> +differences have broken out between independent +sovereign states all we have said holds good—the +separate wills of separate bodies, the mere outward +agreements with no deep-seated impartial will and +power behind them, the usages and rules at the +mercy of the individual conscience of states, which +in some cases appears to be an absent factor.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Well, but cannot we go further back? <em>Is</em> it in +the nature of states that differences should constantly +be arising between them? The state is +there to be the condition of organized good life +for the inhabitants of a certain territory. Is it a +property of this function that different states +should be continually liable to be at variance? Is +tendency to war really a feature of states in respect +of what they are as states? Or is it not rather +perhaps a feature of them in so far as they fail to +be states? To organize good life in a certain +territory seems to have nothing in it prima facie +which should necessitate variance between the +bodies charged with the task in one place and in +another.</p> + +<p class='c012'><span class='pageno' id='Page_145'>145</span>When, in the light of this question, we look +closer at the facts, what stares us in the face is that +the cause of external conflict as a rule is not +internal organization, but internal disorganization. +The quarrelsome man is not well organized in his +mind; he is ill organized—certainly in mind, +probably in body. Plato indeed laid his finger +on the place, though you might criticize his explanation +in some particulars. The origin of war, +he says, is when states become internally diseased; +the more they are distracted within, the more they +come into conflict without.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Let us think further of this. People who are +satisfied do not want to make war; and in a well-organized +community people are satisfied. War +must arise from dissatisfied elements in a community; +people who have not got what they want +within (or have it but are afraid of losing it) and so +look for profit or for security in adventures without. +War belongs to a state, then, ultimately, not in so +far as it is a state, but in so far as it is not a state.</p> + +<p class='c012'>All sorts of causes of dissatisfaction or alarm +lead to external conflict. There may be privileged +classes directly interested in resisting the better +organization of the community; in maintaining, +for instance, an obsolete franchise and the power +of a military caste. There may be oppressed +religious persuasions, oppressed nationalities, provinces +torn from the allegiance they prefer. All +of these are likely to throw their hopes and ambitions +outside the state which formally includes +them, and to produce resentments against it in +<span class='pageno' id='Page_146'>146</span>other groups. Then, more subtle and more modern, +there are the whole set of restrictions upon human +intercourse which depend on the idea that the gain +of one community is the loss of another. All of +these make doubly for war; they make privileges +at home, which turn the mind of the privileged +class away from internal organization and towards +external aggression; and they make exclusions +abroad, turning the mind of the excluded classes to +retaliation both in kind and by arms. Exclusion +reaches the climax of its vicious effect when it +becomes an affair of what I shall call for short +‘passive markets’—such, that is, as raise the +problem of the prior possession of uncivilized +regions which the white man can exploit at pleasure, +and at pleasure close against others.</p> + +<p class='c012'>I must not pause to analyse at length the claims +supported by that blessed word ‘expansion’. So +good a historian as Dr. Holland Rose<a id='r25'></a><a href='#f25' class='c013'><sup>[25]</sup></a> seems to +accept the increase of Germany’s population by +50 per cent. in one generation as a sufficient reason +for a vigorous expansion policy. But surely we +must distinguish between the duties really imposed +upon a state by such an increase with a view to +organization of life, and the adventures and exclusive +exploitations for which it may be the pretext, +but which do nothing serious to aid the work +of organization, while they fill the world with +monopolies and with terrors of aggression.</p> + +<p class='c012'>And again, it appears only just to remark, +following for example a recent article by Sir +<span class='pageno' id='Page_147'>147</span>Harry Johnston,<a id='r26'></a><a href='#f26' class='c013'><sup>[26]</sup></a> confirmed in this respect by +Mr. Morel,<a href='#f26' class='c013'><sup>[26]</sup></a> that when in a huge world-empire +there is advocated a policy of commercial exclusion +directed against other countries, these countries +will anticipate being gravely prejudiced in their +legitimate foreign trade. Then follows the desire +on their part to possess themselves of exclusive +markets, and unending fears and resentments are +bred on every side. That the practical and theoretical +inspiration of the policy so advocated had +its source in some of the countries threatened by it, +would have made it, if carried out, an interesting +retribution, but would not have diminished its +danger.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Surely, for the legitimate expansion demanded +by increase of population the ‘open door’ is the +right and effective principle. It will meet both +the need of trade, and in the last resort, the need +of space and elbow-room for population. Under +it no one’s expansion can be a threat to any one, +or produce monopolies which will hinder social +organization, and turn men’s minds to aggression. +And it must also be noted that the loss of citizen +population, which is sometimes complained of, is +not really met by mere increase of territorial +possessions. It is largely due to the very military +system which is relied on to remedy its causes—in +a word, to defective social organization, which lays +unwelcome burdens on the ordinary citizen, and +even fails to utilize territorial expansion as an +outlet for population.</p> + +<p class='c012'><span class='pageno' id='Page_148'>148</span>It must be borne in mind, however, that the +exclusive policy advocated within our Empire was +decisively rejected, and the open door, the main +thing demanded by expansion elsewhere, was as +decisively maintained. Even territorial acquisition +in tropical regions, though it has practically +been of little value to the increasing populations +of European countries, this country has not obstructed, +and I hope and trust that it will maintain +its unenvious policy in this respect up to the limits +of possibility in the settlement after the war.</p> + +<p class='c012'>I have no right to lecture on economics, but the +general principles which I have been advocating, +of absence of monopoly at home, and the ‘open +door’ abroad, fall, I think, within the competence +of a student of politics. Restrictions on human +intercourse are prima facie injurious, and demand +the very strongest justification if they are to be +tolerated.</p> + +<p class='c012'>And on a kindred point, really beyond my competence, +I will merely put a question. Presupposing +a sufficiency of external trade to pay for food +and raw materials, is not the home market the +most important and the most secure? When it +is not so, is not the purchasing power of the most +numerous classes short of what it should be? +And through directing the minds of the leaders +of trade to external adventure, is not such a +state of things a constant incentive to exclusive +exploitation and to war?</p> + +<p class='c012'>I will end by summarizing as shortly as I can +the conclusions which follow from our argument—both +<span class='pageno' id='Page_149'>149</span>what we must admit, and what we are anxious +to maintain.</p> + +<p class='c012'>(1) We must admit that states, in consequence +of their separateness and absoluteness, are so <em>far</em> +in a relation of nature to each other, though this +is mitigated by humane conventions and usages. +If differences arise, the ultimate arbiter is war, +which is therefore necessary to the function of +states as now existing. While this is so, international +politics must differ from individual +morality as maintaining a world differs from living +in one.</p> + +<p class='c012'>(2) We must admit that when, on this basis, it +is attempted to secure peace according to the rule +<em><span lang="la">Si vis pacem, para bellum</span></em>, the project is self-contradictory. +As principles are the same for all +parties, it implies the condition of securing peace +to be that of any two opponent powers each must +be at the same time stronger than the other. This +contradiction is the root of the race in armaments.</p> + +<p class='c012'>(3) We must admit that, on this basis, no league +or federation <em>ad hoc</em> can secure peace. Every such +league must, sooner or later (being a mere convention +of separate wills) arouse a counter-league. +Such arrangements, I believe, are fertile of wars.</p> + +<p class='c012'>(4) We maintain that the fundamental root of +peace lies in the recognition that war belongs to +states not in as far as they are states, but in as far +as they are not states; granted that their actual +defects to-day make the reverse of this appear to +be the truth.</p> + +<p class='c012'>(5) We maintain that the patriotism which is +<span class='pageno' id='Page_150'>150</span>the source of peace therefore lies in a thorough +everyday loyalty to the state as a means of harmonious +internal organization excluding privilege +and monopoly, and in our desire for our country +of those supreme goods which are not diminished +by sharing. Trade and industry, though +acquisitions of material wealth, take on this character +when conducted on an impartial and rational +basis. This view agrees with the great German +philosophy in its estimate of true patriotism, but +goes further in analysing the relation of such +patriotism to the causes of war.<a id='r27'></a><a href='#f27' class='c013'><sup>[27]</sup></a></p> + +<p class='c012'>(6) We maintain that in a group or world of +states, possessed by such a patriotism, and therefore +organized so as to be free from causes of resentment, +and united in aims and methods which +admit of harmony, it is conceivable that a true +general will (not a mere external convention) might +grow up which should be solidly supported by the +body, spirit, and sentiment of all the communities.<a id='r28'></a><a href='#f28' class='c013'><sup>[28]</sup></a> +In such a case a genuine international moral world +would be created, and international politics would +approach more nearly to the nature of private +morality, though they could never be the same. +In some respects, indeed, the state, as more impartial, +might maintain a higher standard than the +individual, as happens on occasion even to-day.<a id='r29'></a><a href='#f29' class='c013'><sup>[29]</sup></a></p> + +<p class='c012'><span class='pageno' id='Page_151'>151</span>(7) We maintain that the patriotism which is +the desire for our country of those supreme goods +which are not diminished by sharing, is a guarantee +of a right estimate of values, and therefore of +justice and reasonable organization in dealing with +wealth and power both at home and abroad.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Such a patriotism, desiring and sustaining the +perfection of the state in its organizing functions +as a state, is the only force which is essentially +directed to destroying the causes of war. Even +those intangible springs of hostility, the jealousy +and vanity of nations, cannot ultimately exist in +the same world with such a patriotism.</p> + +<p class='c012'>This temper of mind offers the only prospect +of a solid general will including groups of states. +As its expression, but not without it, leagues of +states for the enforcement of peace might do good +service. Its detailed operation in such a crisis as +will confront the nations of Europe at the close of +the war, will consist in a sincere and persevering +effort to secure everywhere the removal of all such +causes of internal distraction as have been specified +above.</p> + +<p class='c012'>By the merest accident in the world, the last +word in this course of lectures has fallen to me. +And I feel irresistibly impelled to use the opportunity, +well knowing how inadequately, in making +an appeal to you in the spirit of a conviction which +more and more possesses my mind.</p> + +<p class='c012'>I will try to explain it thus.</p> + +<p class='c012'>It was proposed some weeks ago that there +should be a day of national humiliation. The +<span class='pageno' id='Page_152'>152</span>highest authority in the land rejected that form of +expression, and I believe that we all approved of +the rejection.</p> + +<p class='c012'>No, we do not want a day of national humiliation. +If ever it is right for a country to hold up its head, +it is right for our country to-day. But nevertheless +there is something, not wholly different from this, +for which in the spirit of our argument I would +earnestly appeal. There is a way in which every +one of us can do something, and even can do much, +to promote the solid foundations of a stable peace. +I repeat that we do not want a national humiliation. +But we at least who must stay at home have +a need and duty of individual and national self-examination. +It cannot indeed be a duty incumbent +on the men at the front—they have other +matters to attend to—but, most remarkably, the +evil temper against which it is directed is not on +the whole the temper of the men at the front. But +for us—it is a thing we can do, and a thing we +should do. We should examine ourselves—is our +patriotism such as to lead towards the perfectly +organized state? Do we desire for our country +and ourselves only the best things we know, beauty +and truth and love and wholesome living? Do +we seek, by this infallible criterion of values, to +guarantee both ourselves and our country against +the corrupt self-seeking which is the ultimate cause +of war?</p> + +<p class='c012'>Right as our cause is to-day, has not the wrong +which we are labouring to undo been fostered +by ourselves as by others, if not in our case by +<span class='pageno' id='Page_153'>153</span>direct international action, yet by the exhibition +of a jealous and menacing spirit of rivalry? Do +we not constantly endeavour to lower other nations +in our private and public talk, in the world of +letters, and in trade? Is our journalism, is our +literature of the war—though I gladly acknowledge +some most excellent things in both—yet are +they on the whole such as we can look upon with +satisfaction?</p> + +<p class='c012'>I am entirely without sympathy for the attempts +made by a few among our learned men, and by +very many who are far from learned, to belittle +the intellectual and moral debt of Europe to Germany, +and to prove for instance that Goethe—<em>Goethe</em>—was +a great exemplar of selfishness. And +horrible things as I believe her armies have done +in the war, yet the attitude which demands that +when peace returns Germany or Prussia should be +intentionally humiliated and excluded from the +European family of nations, to my own feeling +is actually repellent, and to my judgement is an +attitude of self-satisfaction, morally dangerous in +the extreme, and politically absurd. Surely, whatever +others may do, we on our side should fight our +terrific battle like gentlemen, without rancour or +venom, and with eagerness, above all, when the +fight is done, to recognize the merits of our adversary +which both his passion and ours have for the +moment travestied, and to renew the international +bonds of commerce, science, art, and philosophy. +We ought not to fall below the standard set +us by our private soldiers upon Christmas Day, +<span class='pageno' id='Page_154'>154</span>and indeed, as we hear, upon every day of the +war.</p> + +<p class='c012'>Punishment and humiliation let us leave to consequences +and to history. Belligerents are not +good moral judges of each other. Much of what +we hear to-day in anticipation of the sequel of the +war brings irresistibly to my mind the profound +wisdom of George Meredith’s warning against the +ridiculous attempt at a union of ill temper and +policy.</p> + +<p class='c012'>The patriotism we have attempted to portray +implies and demands that we should desire for +our country, not a triumph of vanity and self-interest, +but a share in such a solid work of +organization as shall be most favourable to +the performance of a true state’s function in +<em>every</em> community of Europe. Thus alone can we +deserve well of our country, and our country of +the world.</p> + +<hr class='c018'> +<div class='footnote' id='f1'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r1'>1</a>. <cite><span lang="fr">L’Orientation religieuse de la France actuelle</span></cite>, pp. 62, 63.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f2'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r2'>2</a>. <cite>Practical Ethics</cite>, pp. 64, 65.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f3'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r3'>3</a>. These sentences are taken from an address, ‘Ueber das +Verhältniss der Politik zur Moral’, published in 1875, among +the <cite><span lang="de">Reden und Aufsätze</span></cite> of Gustav Rümelin, Chancellor of the +University of Tübingen.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f4'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r4'>4</a>. The mistake of attempting to deal with both subjects +was discovered too late to be remedied, but some remarks on +the second which were omitted in the delivery of the lecture +are here printed.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f5'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r5'>5</a>. The reader to whom discussions of the subject of the preceding +paragraphs are new, and who desires to pursue them, +is recommended to refer to F. H. Bradley, <cite>Ethical Studies</cite>, +v and vi; Green, <cite>Principles of Political Obligation</cite>, in <cite>Works</cite>, +vol. ii, or as separately published; Bosanquet, <cite>Philosophical +Theory of the State</cite>. The line followed in these books runs +back through Hegel to Plato and Aristotle, on whose political +philosophy see vol. i of Newman’s edition of Aristotle’s +<cite>Politics</cite>. My short statement does not profess, of course, +to represent the views of any one of the writers named.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f6'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r6'>6</a>. ‘By nature’ here does not mean what the reader is likely +to suppose. On Spinoza’s doctrine see Green, op. cit.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f7'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r7'>7</a>. Essay <cite>Of Empire</cite>. Cf. <cite>Of Greatness of Kingdoms and +Estates</cite>. That Bacon should be thought a great <em>moral</em> guide +seems strange, but his political essays (notably that <cite>Of Plantations</cite>), +like his others, are of course full of wisdom.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f8'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r8'>8</a>. I introduce the word in order to indicate the danger of +using it. It inevitably suggests an antithesis to something +higher (‘duty’ or ‘principle’), and so is taken to mean, not +the end of the state, but some subordinate part of that end.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f9'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r9'>9</a>. What is said here of slavery was suggested by a passage +in Green, op. cit.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f10'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r10'>10</a>. Regarding this ideal, and others less ambitious, there is +always the question whether they do not presuppose a moral +progress which would make an actual organization needless.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f11'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r11'>11</a>. The number of British embassies and legations abroad is +fifty-seven (Whitaker).</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f12'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r12'>12</a>. It is ridiculous to give this name to the state’s normal +duty of developing its own life.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f13'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r13'>13</a>. This cannot be called an unconditional duty, if that +means a duty which in no circumstances can be superseded +by a higher duty (<em>every</em> duty is unconditional except as against +a higher). I honour the German Chancellor for his frank +statement that the violation of Belgian neutrality was an +‘Unrecht’ (a violation of law; i.e. something which is almost +always, but not always, wrong). What was false was the +description, as ‘a matter of life and death’, of the supposed +superior duty taken to justify the supersession of the inferior. +And what was revolting, and only too significant, was the +revelation, in the phrase ‘a scrap of paper’, of the belief that +the supersession of a duty is a trifle.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f14'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r14'>14</a>. See the introduction to the translation of Kant’s essay +(1893, now republished). There is a slighter sketch in W. A. +Phillips’ instructive <cite>Confederation of Europe</cite>, 1914.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f15'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r15'>15</a>. The conduct of the ‘Concert of Europe’ in recent years +may be contrasted very favourably with that of the Holy +Alliance, and may well be taken as a good augury; and it is +better to emphasize this than to dwell on the defects of the +Concert. At the same time, one must remember that it +has been mainly concerned with troubles arising from the +decay of the Turkish Empire, and that this Empire has not +been considered as a full member of the European ‘Family’, +and so has not been treated as one of the United States of +Europe would have to be.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f16'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r16'>16</a>. I do not remember, and have not found, any passage in +his writings which shows in what precise form he conceived +this ideal.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f17'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r17'>17</a>. The latter, for example, in the instructive little book +called <cite>The War and Democracy</cite>, by members of that admirable +society, ‘The Workers’ Educational Association’.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f18'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r18'>18</a>. As regards its social spirit and its standard of social +values, England can hardly be called democratic. It is +probably less so than France was under the third Napoleon.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f19'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r19'>19</a>. I must point out that it by no means follows from the +doctrine of the state’s moral end that the state should promulgate +or encourage one particular view regarding the duties +of its citizens or its own future. On the contrary, one may +hold that doctrine and yet hold that the state should abstain +from doing this and, however much it may support or enforce +education, should, within the necessary limits, leave ‘ideas’ +to prevail or fail through the process of free competition.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f20'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r20'>20</a>. In his lectures on the Philosophy of History, Hegel spoke +of ‘world-historical’ individuals and peoples, who represent +for a time that ‘world-spirit’ whose ‘right’ is supreme; +and perhaps some rash German reader might cry, ‘Yes, +France a century ago, and Germany now.’ But he will not +find a word in Hegel to countenance his claim; and if he +builds his hopes on military power he might ponder Hegel’s +final sentence about the astounding victories of Napoleon: +‘Never was the powerlessness of victory shown in a clearer +light than then.’ I do not mean to imply that, according to +Hegel, what we call the best intentions are bound to prevail. +No philosopher was less inclined to ignore painful facts. His +whole philosophy might even be called an attempt to understand +and justify them.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f21'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r21'>21</a>. My indebtedness in this Paper to Bishop Butler will be +obvious to all who know his sermons on ‘Resentment’ and +on ‘The Forgiveness of Injuries’.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f22'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r22'>22</a>. Among these faults I should count our failure to intervene +in the Schleswig-Holstein War.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f23'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r23'>23</a>. Hegel, <cite>Philosophy of Right</cite>, s. 324.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f24'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r24'>24</a>. The professors, it is said, have been mobilized in the service +of Germany. And on the general merits of the dispute +this is so. But I am not aware of evidence that philosophers +of repute have adopted, say, Bernhardi’s or Treitschke’s views +of justification by force. Eucken, though he stands up for +his country, does so partly on the ground that Bernhardi is not +representative, and we must be allowed to discount the popular +use of hard sayings from Nietzsche, though he has very probably +misled the multitude. Nietzsche is not a thinker whom +he that runs may read. Wundt, I think, is simply misinformed +and credulous, while strongly affected by national bias +and vanity. I may add that the idea of ‘culture’ in the +earlier period is right and fine. I cite from Kant what is +probably the original account of it: ‘We are <em>civilized</em> to the +point of wearisomeness, into all sorts of social courtesy and +politeness. But before we can be held to be <em>moralized</em> there is +a very long way to go. For culture implies more than civilization, +it implies the idea of morality.’ Kant’s <cite><span lang="de">Werke</span></cite> (R.) 7,329. +He is censuring the expenditure on ‘expansion’, as thwarting +the spiritual growth of the citizens.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f25'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r25'>25</a>. <cite>Manchester Lectures on Germany in 19th Century</cite>, 2nd. ed. 19.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f26'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r26'>26</a>. <cite>New Statesman</cite>, February 6 and 13.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f27'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r27'>27</a>. See T. H. Green, <cite>Lectures on Principles of Political Obligation</cite>, +ss. 157–75.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f28'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r28'>28</a>. Lord Haldane’s Montreal address, ‘Higher Nationality’, +republished in <cite>The Conduct of Life</cite>, Murray, 1914.</p> +</div> +<div class='footnote' id='f29'> +<p class='c012'><a href='#r29'>29</a>. Green, op. cit., s. 175.</p> +</div> + +</main> +<div class='pbb'> + <hr class='pb c004'> +</div> +<div class='tnotes x-ebookmaker'> + +<div class='chapter ph2'> + +<div class='nf-center-c0'> +<div class='nf-center c001'> + <div>TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES</div> + </div> +</div> + +</div> + + <ul class='ul_1 c003'> + <li>Fixed typos; non-standard spelling and dialect retained. + </li> + </ul> + +</div> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 79404 ***</div> +</body> +<!-- created with ppgen.py 3.57i (with regex) on 2026-08-19 22:15:48 GMT --> +</html> |