chapter I on the differences between ancient (pre-Athenian) thought and

modern thought. The former he calls Undirected Thinking, the latter Directed Thinking. The former was a thinking in images, akin to dreaming; the latter a thinking in words. Science is an organization of directed thinking. The Antique spirit (before the Greek thinkers, _i.e._) created not science but mythology. The ancient human world was a world of subjective fantasies like the world of children and uneducated young people to-day, and like the world of savages and dreams. Infantile thought and dreams are a re-echo of the prehistoric and savage. Myths are the mass dreams of peoples, and dreams the myths of individuals. The work of hard and disciplined thinking by means of carefully analyzed words and statements which was begun by the Greek thinkers and resumed by the scholastic philosophers of whom we shall tell in the middle ages, was a necessary preliminary to the development of modern science.

[194] “For the proper administration of justice and for the distribution of authority it is necessary that the citizens be acquainted with each other’s characters, so that, where this cannot be, much mischief ensues, both in the use of authority and in the administration of justice; for it is not just to decide arbitrarily, as must be the case with excessive population.” Aristotle’s _Politics_, quoted by Wheeler, who adds, “Aristotle comes to the conclusion that the natural ‘limit to the size of the state must be found in the capability of being easily taken in at a glance.’” But Murray notes that the word Eusunopton means also “capable of being comprehended as a unity”--a very different and wider idea.

[195] Benjamin Ide Wheeler’s _Alexander the Great_ and G. D. Hogarth’s _Philip and Alexander_ have been very useful here.

[196] To the common Athenians, that is. But to many thoughtful Greeks the rôle of Macedonia in their future was a matter of earnest speculation. Herodotus (viii. 137) tells a long story of a prophecy by which the inheritance of Perdiccas, the ancestor of the Macedonian kings, was to embrace at last the whole round world. This was written a hundred years before Philip and Alexander.

[197] Goldsmith’s _History of Greece_. The picturesque disposition of the novelist rather than the austere method of the historian, is apparent here.

[198] But Phocis was treated in the same way by Philip and his friends in 346, and Mantinea by Sparta in 385. It was a regular Greek punishment of a city to break it up into villages; and as for selling into slavery, Callicratidas the Spartan, in the Peloponnesian War, was held to be very noble when he said he would not sell Greeks into slavery. Anyhow, the destruction of Thebes was due to the _Greek_ enemies of Thebes, who pressed it on Alexander.--E. B.

[199] Mahaffy. Their names have undergone various changes--_e.g._ Candahar (Iskender) and Secunderabad.

[200] D. G. Hogarth.

[201] The stages by which Bactria degenerated into Afghanistan may be studied neatly in the progressive deterioration of its coinage from a decent standard of Hellenic accomplishment into the vague flourishes of Orientalism; it began by displaying a Heracles of pure Greek blood and a pair of horsemen who would hardly have seemed out of place on the frieze of the Parthenon, and it fell steadily to a level of incompetence only equalled by the crude imitations of Roman currency that were being made in pre-Roman Britain about the same time.--P. G.

[202] Before that time. But such speculation was going on then. There is some interesting economic theory in Plato’s _Republic_, and Aristotle was writing the _œconomica_. Xenophon wrote on Athenian revenues and other economic matters. Thucycides wrote an excellent passage on the Greek past, and Aristotle dealt with barbaric customs.--E. B.

[203] _Vide_ Mahaffy’s _Greek Life and Thought and his Progress of Hellenism in Alexander’s Empire_, Marvin’s _Living Past_, Legge’s _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_, and Reinach’s _Orpheus_.

[204] The question whether the vivisection of human beings, or, indeed, whether any vivisection at all occurred at Alexandria, is one of considerable importance because of the light it throws upon the moral and intellectual quality of the time. One of the editors of this book was inclined to throw doubt upon it, as a thing antipathetic to the Greek spirit. The writer has taken some pains to find out the facts of the case, and he has been so fortunate as to have the help of Dr. Singer, one of the greatest living authorities upon the history of medicine. There are statements made by Tertullian (_De Anima_, chap. xxv.), but he was a biased and untrustworthy witness. The conclusive passage is taken from Celsus, who wrote during the reign of Tiberius, three centuries after the great days of Alexandria. “If you are to have one witness,” writes Dr. Singer, “you could hardly have a better. In my own mind I am satisfied with the evidence of Celsus, and I have asked Dr. E. T. Wittrington, our best authority on Greek medicine, and he also is satisfied.”

The following is a translation of the passage in Celsus, _De Re Medica_. One school says that “it is necessary to dissect the bodies of the dead, and to examine their viscera and intestines. Herophilus and Erasistratus adopted by far the best method, for they obtained criminals from prison by royal permission, and dissected them alive, and they examined, while they still breathed, the parts which Nature had concealed, noting their position, warmth (or possibly ‘colour’--_colorem_ instead of _calorem_), shape, size, relation, hardness, softness, smoothness, and feel; also the projections and depressions of each and how they fit into one another. For if there happen any inward pain, he who has not learned where the viscera and intestines are placed, cannot know where the pain is; nor can the diseased part be cured by one who does not know what part it is. Again, if the viscera of any one are exposed by a wound, he who is ignorant of the natural colour of that part in the healthy state cannot know whether it be sound or corrupted, and therefore cannot cure the corrupted part. Moreover remedies can be applied more appropriately externally when the position, shape, and size of the internal parts is known, and the same argument holds for all the other matters that we have mentioned. Nor is it a cruel act, as many would have it, to seek remedies for innocent mankind throughout the ages by torture of a few criminals.”

Against this view, says Celsus, the other school argues that “to cut open the abdomen and thorax of living men, and thus to turn that art which concerns itself with the health of mankind not only into an instrument of death (_pestem_--lit. ‘a plague’), but (death) in its most horrible form, and this although some of the things that we seek thus barbarously can by no means be known, while others may be learned without cruelty. For the colour, smoothness, softness, hardness, and all their like are not the same when the body is cut open as when it is whole; and, moreover, even in bodies that have not been thus ravaged, these properties are often changed by fear, grief, want of food, or of digestion, fatigue and a thousand other lesser causes. It is thus more likely that the inner organs, which are more tender, and to which the light is a new experience, are changed by serious wounds and by mangling.

“Further, nothing can be more foolish than to think that any things are the same in a live man as in a moribund one, or, rather, in one practically dead. It is indeed true that the abdomen, with which our argument is less concerned, can be opened while a man yet lives, but as soon as the knife reaches the thorax (præcordium), and outs the transverse septum, which is a membrane dividing the superior parts from the inferior and called diaphragma by the Greeks, the man at once gives up the ghost, and thus it is the breast and its viscera of a dead and not a living man which the murderous physician examines. He has thus but performed a cruel murder, and has not learned what the viscera of a living man are like.”

Celsus’ own judgment is given a little later: “To dissect a living body is both cruel and unnecessary; to dissect dead bodies is necessary.”

It is to be noted, says Professor Murray, that Herophilus and Erasistratus were not living in a Greek city state, but under an _oriental despot_.

[205] Mahaffy.

[206] It has been suggested that new books were perhaps dictated to a roomful of copyists, and so issued in a first edition of some hundreds at least. In Rome, Horace and Virgil seem to have been issued in quite considerable editions.

[207] See Ferguson’s _Hellenistic Athens_.

[208] Serapis sounds like a compound of Apis and Osiris, but there is reason for supposing that the name is really of Chaldean origin. See Cumont, _Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism_.

[209] Legge, _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_.

[210] See for much light on the syncretic religions before Christianity Franz Cumont, _Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism_. This is a very able and thoroughly interesting book.

[211] Rhys Davids’ _Buddhism_ and other writings by him have been our chief guide here.

[212] Pronounced Ashoka.

[213] The _Burmese Chronicle_, quoted by Rhys Davids.

[214] The _Madhurattha Vilasini_, quoted by Rhys Davids.

[215] Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_.

[216] See R.F. Johnston, _Buddhist China_.--L.C.B.

[217] Hue’s _Travels in Tartary, Tibet, and China_.

[218] Rhys Davids. He was the son of a king by a low-caste mother.

[219] See Giles, _Confucianism and its Rivals_.

[220] S. N. Fu.

[221] Hirth’s _The Ancient History of China_.

[222] The reader will find a footnote to Chap. XXXI, § 8, signed L. C. B., which gives the main differences between the teachings of Confucius and Lao Tse.

[223] See Hue’s _Travels in Tartary, Thibet, and China_.

[224] A very convenient handbook for this and the next two chapters is Matheson’s _Skeleton Outline of Roman History_.

[225] For Italian pre-history see Modestov’s _Introduction à l’histoire Romaine_, and Peet’s _Stone and Bronze Age in Italy and Sicily_.

[226] See Lloyd’s _Making of the Roman People_.

[227] Latin _Pœni_ = Carthaginians. _Punicus (adj.)_ = Carthaginian, _i.e._ Phœnician.

[228] See Pelham, _Outlines of Roman History_; Mommsen, _History of Rome_; and the histories of the Roman Empire by Bury, H. Stuart Jones, and W. E. Heitland.

[229] Ferrero, _The Greatness and Decline of Rome_.

[230] J. Wells, _Short History of Rome to the Death of Augustus_.

[231] J. Wells.

[232] But note that Athens had (1) no taxes on foreigners, and inflicted no disabilities on them except absence of citizenship. No “expulsions of aliens” such as were regular at Sparta, and common in most places. This is a frequent Athenian boast. Cp. Thucydides, ii. 39, “Our city is thrown open to the world. We never expel a foreigner or prevent him from seeing and learning anything of which the secret, if revealed, might be useful to an enemy.” (2) Practically Free Trade; only a general 5 per cent. import duty. (3) Great interest in foreign places, constitutions, customs, etc. Athens was very oppressive--by modern standards--to its subject-allies; chiefly because there was no representation, and because she was so much at war. But even here, after her defeat in 404, they voluntarily gathered to her again. The second Athenian Empire was not in any way forced upon them.--G. M.

[233] Haverfield says--and I think he is right--that Rome had a great advantage in her imperial development--viz., that she was a city and not a nation. A nation implies some unity of race, and race prejudice. A city is based on the mere fact of citizenship. We should have said to St. Paul: “Citizen or no citizen, you are only a Levantine Jew.” But a Roman, apparently, did not think of saying so. Hence the great freedom with which emperors and senators are taken from other races.--G. M.

[234] The point raised here that Rome never developed representation is a very interesting one. There was a golden chance in the Social War (90 B.C.). The allies of Rome (socii) revolted, and set up a counter Rome in Corfinium. Now, to our minds, the obvious thing for them to do was (1) to make Corfinium just a capital; (2) to set up a parliament there, consisting of representatives drawn from the allies, who lived, of course, all over Italy. Not a bit of it. They made Corfinium a city state (not a capital), and feigned themselves all to be citizens of it, meeting in a primary assembly there. They also set up, it is true, a senate of 500; but this was just a copy of the Roman senate, and not a representative body (see Mommsen, vol. iii. pp. 237-8, Eng. trans.). Under the Roman Empire there were germs of representation in provincial assemblies: see Bury, _Student’s Roman Empire_, on the _concilium Lugdunense_ in Gaul and τἁ κοιγἁ in Asia Minor.--E. B.

[235] Seyffert’s _Dictionary of Classical Antiquities_. (Nettleship Sandys.)

[236] Aristotle, _Politics_, Bk. ii. ch. xi.; and J. Wells, _Rome to the Death of Augustus_.

[237] J. Wells, _op. cit._

[238] Plutarch, _Life of Cato_.

[239] Mommsen says the other provinces cost as much as they paid.

[240] But it was this Scipio Nasica who was responsible for the killing of Tiberius Gracchus. On the whole, he seems to have been a statesman of very distinguished abilities. He was the means of bringing the Asiatic Great Mother Goddess to Rome. “People at Rome generally were beginning to see that they would have to take over Asia. Had they any right? Nasica was sent on a mission to invite the Magna Mater at Pessinus to come to Rome. Her image nodded ‘yes.’ She was brought and installed in Rome. Now this is a policy of peaceful assimilation. Just as in Babylon you get gods of other cities brought to Babylon, just as Nabonidus (see Chap. xix. § 6) was trying to get an amicable pantheon as a way of peaceful assimilation, and failing to do so because he did not bring the priesthoods as well as the gods, so Rome was at this time thinking on the same lines. Camillus had shown the way when he suggested the invitation of Juno of Veii to Rome. Now Nasica, it may be suggested, wanted to treat Carthage in the same fashion. He opposed the destruction of Carthage in 146 (Mommsen, iii. p. 23, p. 39). If he had had his way, one may guess, he would have invited the Carthaginian gods to Rome, and the corollary would have been the enfranchisement of the Carthaginian population--the treatment of the Carthaginians as equals, whose gods had been received in Rome, and stood in Rome. Mummius did the same in carrying off the statues of Greek gods to Rome, only, being stupid, he did not understand why (146 B.C.).”

Nasica’s visit to Pessinus was as important as the testament of Attalus. His policy is not the policy of Rome the conqueror, but Rome the assimilator. He is trying to get a nexus by a common pantheon. If this had been done, the Republic might have survived. As it was, the deification of the ruler had to provide the nexus, as in Alexander’s empire. The “Synœcism of gods” or the “deification of rulers,” those are the only ways of amalgamating peoples. It is a pity Alexander and Rome did not attempt the former.--J. L. M. and E. B.

[241] The intervening Scipio was a man of learning and high character who died young.--G. M.

[242] Julius Cæsar (60 B.C.) caused the proceedings of the Senate to be published by having them written up upon bulletin boards, _in albo_ (upon the white). It had been the custom to publish the annual edict of the prætor in this fashion. There were professional letter-writers who sent news by special courier to rich country correspondents, and these would copy down the stuff upon the Album (white board). Cicero, while he was governor in Cilicia, got the current news from such a professional correspondent. He complains in one letter that it was not what he wanted; the expert was too full of the chariot races and other sporting intelligence, and failed to give any view of the political situation. Obviously this news-letter system was available only for public men in prosperous circumstances.

[243] Seyffert, _op. cit._

[244] Authorities differ here. Mayor says thumbs up (to the breast) meant death and thumbs down meant “Lower that sword.” The popular persuasion is that thumbs down meant death. Seyffert’s _Dict. Class. Antiq._ gives this view. See the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, article “Gladiators.”

[245] “A little more needs to be said on this matter. The Greeks cited gladiatorial shows as a reason for regarding the Romans as _Barbaroi_, and there were riots when some Roman proconsul tried to introduce them in Corinth. Among Romans, the better people evidently disliked them, but a sort of shyness prevented them from frankly denouncing them as cruel. For instance, Cicero, when he had to attend the Circus, took his tablets and his secretary with him, and didn’t look. He expresses particular disgust at the killing of an elephant; and somebody in Tacitus (Drusus, Ann. 1. 76) was unpopular because he was too fond of gladiatorial bloodshed--“_quamquam vili sanguine nimis gaudens_” (“rejoicing too much in blood, worthless blood though it was”). The games were unhesitatingly condemned by Greek philosophy, and at different times two Cynics and one Christian gave their lives in the arena, protesting against them, before they were abolished.

“I do not think Christianity had any such relation to slavery as is here stated. St. Paul’s action in sending back a slave to his master, and his injunction, ‘Slaves, obey your masters,’ were regularly quoted on the pro-slavery side, down to the nineteenth century; on the other hand, both the popular philosophies and the Mystery religions were against slavery in their whole tendency, and Christianity of course in time became the chief representative of these movements. Probably the best test is the number of slaves who occupied posts of honour in the religious and philosophic systems, like Epictetus, for instance, or the many slaves who hold offices in the Mithraic Inscriptions. I do not happen to know if any slaves were made Christian bishops, but by analogy I should think it likely that some were. In all the Mystery religions, as soon as you entered the community, and had communion with God, earthly distinctions shrivelled away.”--G. M.

The Spirit of Jesus is something different from formal Christianity, which I regard as the vehicle, the largely unsympathetic vehicle, by which that spirit was carried about the world.--H. G. W.

[246] _Greatness and Decline of Rome_, bk. i. ch. xi.

[247] There is no evidence of forgery and no contemporary suggestion of the sort. The bequest of Attalus, even if it was a forgery (Mommsen accepts it, iii. p. 55), is of importance, as showing that a great many people did think that Rome was the best administrator. Otherwise, the story (if it is only a story) could not have caught on. _A priori_ there seems good reason for the testament. The Attalid dynasty was “petering out”; there were troublesome Gauls about (Mommsen, iii. p. 53).--J. L. M. and E. B.

[248] Ferrero.

[249] Ferrero.

[250] Plutarch. To which, however, G. M. adds the following note. “It is generally believed that Sulla died through bursting a blood-vessel in a fit of temper. The story of abominable vices seems to be only the regular slander of the Roman mob against anyone who did not live in public.”

[251] Plutarch.

[252] The bow was probably the composite bow, so called because it is made of several plates (five or so) of horn, like the springs of a carriage: it discharges a high-speed arrow with a twang. This was the bow the Mongols used. This short composite bow (it was not a long bow) was quite old in human experience. It was the bow of Odysseus; the Assyrians had it in a modified form. It went out in Greece, but it survived as the Mongol bow. It was quite short, very stiff to pull, with a flat trajectory, a remarkable range, and a great noise (cp. Homer’s reference to the twang of the bow). It went out in the Mediterranean because the climate was not good for it, and because there were insufficient animals to supply the horn.--J. L. M.

[253] For a good compact account of Cæsar, much more appreciative of him than our text, see Warde Fowler’s _Julius Cæsar_.

[254] See Strachan Davidson’s _Cicero_, or, better, his own letters to Atticus.

[255] H. S. Jones, in _The Encyclopædia Britannica_, article “Rome.” His contribution is admirably verified and exact, and we are greatly indebted to it.

[256] The best book in a compact compass for expanding this chapter is H. Stuart Jones’s _The Roman Empire_.

[257] Gibbon.

[258] _Encyclopædia Britannica_, article “Rome.”

[259] See _Encyclopædia Britannica_, article “Longinus.” The Syrian queen referred to by Gibbon is Zenobia. Longinus was put to death by Aurelian. See ch. xxxii., § 2.

[260] The natural result of a plutocratic rule above was a vigorous trade-unionism intent only on short hours and high wages below, and as indifferent as the rich to the common weal. See Hubbard’s _Fate of Empires_, a very stimulating book, differing widely in its spirit and conclusions from those of the writer.

[261] See Legge, _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_.

[262] No really good, full, and popular descriptive history, with maps and illustrations, of early and medieval China, nor of the Mongol (Hun) and Turkish peoples, seems to exist in the English language. The writer has consulted Skrine and Ross’s _Heart of Asia_, Hirth’s _Ancient History of China_, S. Wells Williams’ _History of China_, _A Thousand Years of the Tartars_, by E. H. Parker, H. H. Howorth’s History of the Mongols, and has found much useful material scattered through Ratzel and Helmolt. He has later on made a useful section from Watters’ translation and commentary upon the _Travels of Yuan Chwang_, supplemented by the _Life of Yuan Chwang_, edited by L. Cranmer Byng. Yule’s edition of Marco Polo has also been a very inspiring source of material.

[263] E. H. Parker, _A Thousand Years of the Tartars_.

[264] Even in eastern Turkestan there are still strong evidences of Nordic blood in the physiognomy of the people. See Ella and Percy Sykes, _Through Deserts and Oases of Central Asia_.

[265] See Roger Pocock, _Horses_, a very interesting and picturesque little book.

[266] _The History of Mankind_, book v., C.

[267] _The History of Mankind_, book v., C.

[268] See _Migrations_, by Flinders Petrie, the 1906 Huxley Lecture of the Royal Anthrop. Institute.

[269] E. B.

[270] In Helmolt’s _History of the World_.

[271] E. B. disagrees with this view. He regards it as the pro-Teutonic view of the German historians.

[272] Gibbon.

[273] Gibbon.

[274] The spread and the vitality of the place-name “Rome” were even greater than the vogue of the title “Cæsar.” All the countries which had formed part of the Eastern and Western divisions of the Roman Empire (excepting the ephemeral extension of Roman rule over Mesopotamia) were known to the Saracens, the Arabs, the Berbers as “Rum,” and their peoples as “Rumis,” “Rumas.” And this name was applied without, in all cases, carrying with it the signification of “Christian” or “Christendom.” Thus the Spanish Moors were, and their descendants are, styled by the Moroccan Moors and the Algerians and Tunisians: “Rumas.” When expelled from Spain most of them took service under the Sharifian Emperors of Morocco, and brought with them a European knowledge of fire-arms. Thus you are told in Algeria that “Romans” (_i.e._ Spanish Moors) conquered the Upper Niger basin for Morocco in the seventeenth century; their descendants remain there till to-day between Jenné and Timbuktu, still known to the French as “Roumas.” Some Spanish Moors even penetrated to the coast of eastern equatorial Africa and carried the name of “Rome” into the fierce expulsion of the Portuguese from those parts which was begun by the Omani Arabs.--H. H. J.

[275] Josephus.

[276] See _Encyclopædia Biblica_; article “Jesus.”

[277] Matt. xii. 46-50.

[278] Mark x. 17-25.

[279] Mark. vii. 1-9.

[280] Mark xii. 13-17.

[281] Mark x. 35-45.

[282] For the connexion of Jesus with the Messiah idea, see E. F. Scott’s _Kingdom of the Messiah_.

[283] Hirth, _The Ancient History of China_. Chap. viii.

[284] “St. Paul understood what most Christians never realize, namely, that the Gospel of Christ is not a religion, but religion itself in its most universal and deepest significance.”--Dean Inge in _Outspoken Essays_.

[285] Authorities vary considerably upon this date, and upon most of the dates of the life of Jesus. See _Encyclopædia Biblica_, art. “Chronology.”

[286] See _Judaism and St. Paul_, by C. G. Montefiore, for some interesting speculations on the religion of Paul before his conversion. See also the very interesting paper on St. Paul in Dean Inge’s _Outspoken Essays_ already quoted in a footnote. An excellent book widely divergent from the opinions expressed in the text is W. Morgan’s _Religion and Theology of St. Paul_.

[287] Paul’s Greek is very good. He is affected by the philosophical jargon of the Hellenistic schools and by that of Stoicism. But his mastery of sublime language is amazing.--G. M.

[288] The spirit of Jesus, the animating spirit of Christianity, which breathes through the gospels, was flatly opposed both to private property and slavery, but the attitude of the Christians was never so definite. Generally they ameliorated rather than abolished.--H. G. W.

Patristic theory justified slavery as a result of the Fall. See Carlyle, _Medieval Political Theory in the West_.--E. B.

[289] Serapis was a synthesis of Osiris and Apis.

[290] See Legge, _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_, chap. xii. See also Cumont’s _Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism_ for a very clear account of the gradual development of Roman Paganism into a religion very similar to Christianity _pari passu_ with the development of Christianity.

[291] Cp. Father Hugh Benson’s account of the procession of the Host in his book _Lourdes_.

[292] In any prayer book of the Episcopalian Church. The Athanasian Creed embodies the view of Athanasius, but probably was not composed by him.

[293] Gibbon, _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, chap. xvi.

[294] Here, from another point of view, are some remarks upon the acceptance of Christianity by the empire. Let us remember that the Church, an object so familiar to us, was to the decent Roman a very strange thing. It was a vast society for mutual help, quite outside the state and the recognized corporations; it was secret (hence the frequent inquisitions and the praise given by Church historians to those who “confessed Christ”); it drew its main strength from a class “not well thought of by the police, the proletariat of the big manufacturing towns of Syria and the Levant, like Antioch.” Alternately proscribed and connived at, much subjected to pogroms, it gradually increased in strength. Diocletian summoned his two associated Cæsars to a conference on the subject, and they decided to crush the society by a drastic persecution. They persecuted and failed, and Diocletian resigned. Constantine the Great, the next claimant to the empire, made terms with the society and succeeded. He established it as official, and overcame its hatred of Rome by showering wealth and power on it. Eventually, when in fear of death, he got baptized. All modern analogies are fallacious, but if you imagine a blend of pacifist international socialists with some mystical Indian sect, drawing its supporters mainly from an oppressed and ill-liked foreign proletariat, such as the “hunkey” population of some big American towns, full of the noblest moral professions but at the same time alien, or even hostile, to the whole established order of society, I think you will get the sort of impression that the Christian society made on a Roman. The conception of the blameless and saintly Early Christian is, I think, hugely romance. Of course, like most religious reformers, they were in the main seekers after righteousness and above the average of their contemporaries. Also the Christian writers are apt to have more life and vision than their conventional or reactionary Pagan contemporaries. But consider the appalling accusations made by all the Christian sects against each other, and the furious denunciation of the turbulent Christian monastics by Augustine. Also consider what a spirit lies behind the Book of Revelation! Read especially Chapters 17-19, a series of elaborate and horrific curses upon Rome (including repeated threats of its destruction by fire, which the Christians were believed to have attempted), or the end of Chapter 14 where the ministers of the Son of Man tread the winepress of the world till the blood comes “even to the bridles of the horses.” If we found such a book now circulating in India, with England taking the place of Rome, I fear there would be some shooting and hanging. The fact that the Christians actually prayed for the destruction of the whole world by fire seemed to the average non-Christian evidence of almost maniacal wickedness.

I do not of course write to blame the Revelationist; such visions of hatred are the natural outcome of persecution and great suffering. I am merely trying to make intelligible the dislike and even dread of the Christians which seems to have been commonly felt. (See also Seek, _Untergang der Antiken Welt_, vol. 3, esp. the notes.)--G.M.

[295] q.v., _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, chap. xiv.

[296] On the rise of dogma or tradition in the Church, especially at Rome, see Davis, _Mediæval Europe_ (Home University Library).--E. B.

[297] _Encyclopædia Britannica_, art. “Church History,” p. 336.

[298] E. B. (quoted from Tröltsch).

[299] See Haverfield. _The Romanization of Roman Britain_.--E. B.

[300] No literature! I demur entirely. Apuleius, Ammianus, St. Augustine, the Vulgate, Claudian, Sidonius Apollinaris, Ausonius--I mention but a few names--are not these literature?--E. B.

I forgot the _Golden Ass_ and St. Augustine as coming into the Imperial period, but do these two names save the situation? E. B. ekes out with one second-rate historian, a translation, three court poets. Yet we are dealing here with the literature of a “world” empire.--H. G. W.

[301] A very interesting and suggestive book bearing on this question of disease in relation to political history is _Malaria: a Neglected Factor in the History of Greece and Rome_, by W. H. S. Jones.

[302] Baring Gould’s _Lives of the Saints_.

[303] On Benedictinism, see Dom. Berlière’s _L’Ordre Monastique_.--E. B.

[304] See Holmes’ _Justinian and Theodora_.--E. B.

[305] Great importance is attached to this task by historians, including one of the editors of this history. We are told that the essential contribution of Rome to the inheritance of mankind is the idea of society founded on law, and that this exploit of Justinian was the crown of the gift. The writer is ill-equipped to estimate the peculiar value of Roman legalism to mankind. Existing law seems to him to be based upon a confused foundation of conventions, arbitrary assumptions, and working fictions about human relationship, and to be a very impracticable and antiquated system indeed; he is persuaded that a time will come when the whole theory and practice of law will be recast in the light of a well-developed science of social psychology in accordance with a scientific conception of human society as one developing organization and in definite relationship to a system of moral and intellectual education. He contemplates the law and lawyers of to-day with a temperamental lack of appreciation. This may have made him negligent of Justinian and unjust to Rome as a whole.

[306] _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, chap. xxiii.

[307] Turanians from Turkestan or Avars from the Caucasus.

[308] There is a good account of Mithraism in C. Bigg’s _The Church’s Task in the Roman Empire_.--E. B.

[309] Julian was not so much a Mithraist as a syncretist. See Alice Gardner, _Julian the Apostate_.--E. B.

[310] The Ephthalites on the Oxus produced a coinage in silver and copper consisting of three denominations: heavy silver, light silver, and copper. Thirteen specimens are known to survive, the light silver denomination being represented by two specimens in the British Museum and one at Petrograd, until I was fortunate enough to add two to their number by a _trouvaille_ in Oxford Street.--P. G.

Our illustration shows one of these two coins. It may have been struck in India in some state under Ephthalite dominion. Its interest for us lies in the figure it gives of a Hun horseman. He seems to wear a feather head-dress, reminding one of a Red Indian or a Moscow hotel porter, and his leg gear suggests an American cow-boy. Note his great quiver of arrows.--H. G. W.

[311] I am greatly indebted to Mr. S. N. Fu and to Mr. Duyvendak for much information and criticism upon the matter of this and the next section. They have both been rewritten since the appearance of the _Outline_ in parts.

[312] There were girl slaves who did domestic work and women who were bought and sold.--J.J.L.D.

[313] It is doubtful if the Chinese knew of the mariner’s compass. Hirth, _Ancient History of China_, p. 126 sqq. comes to the conclusion, after a careful examination of all data, that, although it is probable something like the compass was known in high antiquity, the knowledge of it was lost for a long time afterwards, until, in the Middle Ages, it reappears as an instrument in the hands of geomancers (people who selected favourable sites for graves, etc). The earliest unmistakable mention of its use as a guide to mariners occurs in a work of the 12th century and refers to its use on foreign ships trading between China and Sumatra. Hirth is rather inclined to assume that Arab travellers may have seen it in the hands of Chinese geomancers and applied its use to navigation, so that it was afterwards brought back by them to China as the “mariner’s compass.”--J. J. L. D.

[314] Helmolt.

[315] The reason for the stationariness of China goes, we think, deeper than a script. China has formed a social-economic system which (1) cannot be transplanted, and (2) cannot be changed without tremendous effort. She lives by agriculture--rice-growing. (There is some tea among the foot hills, but it has to grow _with_ rice to support the population.) Towns exist--on the edge of the rice-fields, for their needs. The town is dependent on the country, not, as elsewhere, country on town. There are small properties; all the hands are wanted, and can be absorbed, in old ancestral agricultural jobs. A state of small peasants, tilling, tilling, tilling, has no source of initiative towards change. If coal is to be mined in the future, and China industrialized, then a society that has not fundamentally changed for thousands of years may be changed. China is like an Egypt or Sumeria, so big that the nomads--those terrible agents of change--beat on its mass in vain. What the nomads have not done, modern industrialism may do.--J. L. M. and E. B.

Both Mr. Chen and Mr. Fu lay considerable stress upon the institution of the patriarchal Chinese family clan, which retains its sons at home, marrying them at an early age before they achieve economic independence, as a retarding influence upon Chinese progress. Mr. Chen and Mr. Duyvendak are also inclined to lay stress upon the paralyzing effect of the classical examinations upon the Chinese mind. These examinations have subdued or rejected all innovating intelligences. Mr. Duyvendak also points out that J. L. M. and E. B. have overlooked the fact that rice is grown only in South China.

L. C. B. disagrees with J. L. M. and E. B. in his analysis of the Chinese problem. His sympathies are with the south; with the philosophy of Lao Tse. He writes as follows:--

“In order to answer the question--why China achieved so much under the T’ang, Sung, and Ming dynasties, and thereafter failed to achieve more, it is necessary to consider what were the principal factors of culture and progress under these dynasties, and how they came to be extinguished.

“From the earliest times there have always been two widely differing types of Chinese mind--the Northern or Confucian, and the Southern or Taoist. As Mr. Okakura has pointed out, the Yangtse-Kiang and the Hwang-Ho rivers are respectively, from the point of view of thought and culture, the Mediterranean and the Baltic of China. Taoism was the idealism of the south, Confucianism the practice of the north. Both stood for adjustment; but the adjustment of Confucius was the adjustment of the individual in his social and ceremonial relations to others, while that of Lao Tse was the adjustment of the individual soul in its relation to the Infinite. The history of China is bound up with the struggle of those two forces, culminating in the practically complete defeat of Taoism after centuries of ebb and flow. Chu Hsi, A.D. 1130-1200, was the later St. Paul of modern Confucianism. During the T’ang, Sung, and Ming dynasties China was temporarily united, and free play was allowed to the thought of both schools. Each played its part and each reacted upon the other, to the great benefit of the Empire. Yet both systems carried within them the seeds of decay. Taoism, divorced from the affairs of everyday life and the education of the people, lost itself in art, literature, and mythology. Confucianism added layer after layer of hard shell about the inert organism of social life. The end was finally reached in 1421 under the Mings with the transference of the capital from Nanking to Peking, and the dominance of the Confucian party who had brought it about. Only in the later Ming period does the great solitary figure of Wang Yang Ming arise. His central doctrine that thought and learning are of small value unless translated into action had little immediate effect in China, but it fell upon Japanese soil, quickened the drooping Samurai spirit, and reached maturity with the Russo-Japanese war and the advance of modern Japan.

“The imprisonment of the Chinese mind in the ancient script is merely one aspect of Confucianism in its bondage to the past. The statement of J. L. M. and E. B. that China is a nation of peasants is incomprehensible to me. There has always been a great urban industrialism and a great commerce. ‘The Chinese,’ as Dyer Ball says, ‘are pre-eminently a trading race.... Nor has the trade of China been simply a modern affair. From remote antiquity the Chinese have been true to their commercial instincts, and have not only been the civilizers of Eastern Asia, supplying them with their letters and literature’ [and artistic products], ‘but they have also provided for their more material wants, and received in exchange the commodities which they required from the neighbouring nations.’ Trade with India was developed to a great extent in the ninth century A.D.”

This interesting question is also discussed very ably and interestingly in Hubbard’s _The Fate of Empires_.

In discussing §§ 7 and 8, Mr. S. N. Fu has pointed out that little or nothing is said in this Outline of the period of confusion before Shi-Hwang-ti. It was an age of political division indeed, but of very great intellectual initiatives. Unhappily there exists as yet little or no material in Europe available for the purposes of this history, upon this equivalent to the Athenian period of mental vigour in Europe.

[316] See Watters’ _Travels of Yuan Chwang_ and Beal’s _Life of Hiuen Tsiang_ (= Yuan Chwang).

[317] There is some little doubt about this identification. See Watters.

[318] The _British Encyclopædia_ article (Hsuan Tsang) is full and good on his Indian travels.

[319] See Margoliouth’s _Mahommedanism_ and his _Life of Mahomet_.--E. B.

[320] Should be spelt Mădina and Măkka.--H. H. J.

[321] Mark Sykes.

[322] Should be spelt and pronounced Hijra.--H. H. J.

[323] From the year of this flight (= Hegira) from Mecca through the desert to Medina, the Moslem world dates its era. The Moslem year is a year of twelve lunar months (354 days), and is therefore shorter than the year of Western chronology by eleven days. A.H. (the Moslem reckoning) gains a year on A.D. once in every 33 years (about). A.D. 1920 is A.H. 1338 until September 15, when A.H. 1339 begins. A.D. 20,526 and A.H. 20,526 will be partly coincident.

[324] Published by the _Islamic Review_.

[325] But Schurtz, in Helmolt’s _History of the World_, says that the private life of the gallant Khalid was a scandal to the faithful. He committed adultery, a serious offence in a world of polygamy.

[326] At Ctesiphon.

[327] Paraphrased from Schurtz in Helmolt’s _History of the World_.

[328] Mark Sykes.

[329] St. John’s Gospel, chap. i. 1.

[330] Thus Sykes. But Skrine and Ross say only that seventy members of the Omayyad family were invited to a feast under promise of amnesty, and then massacred by the attendants. Gibbon gives eighty victims, and tells his story thus: “Four score of the Omayyads, who had yielded to the faith or clemency of their foes, were invited to a banquet at Damascus. The laws of hospitality were violated by a promiscuous massacre; the board was spread over their fallen bodies; and the festivity of their guests were enlivened by the music of their dying groans.” History is not yet an exact science.

[331] Harun-ar-Rashid = Aaron the Just.--H. H. J.

[332] _The Caliph’s Last Heritage._

[333] _A General History of Europe._

[334] Alcohol as “spirits of wine” was known to Pliny (100 A.D.) The studentof the history of science should consult Campbell Brown’s _History of Chemistry_ and check these statements in the text.

[335] _Encyclopædia Britannica_, article “Feudalism,” by Professor G. B. Adams.

[336] The Franks differed from the Swabians and South Germans, and came much nearer the Anglo-Saxons in that they spoke a “Low German” and not a “High German” dialect. Their language resembled plattdeutsch and Anglo-Saxon, and was the direct parent of Dutch and Flemish. In fact, the Franks where they were not Latinized became Flemings and “Dutchmen” of South Holland (North Holland is still Friesisch--_i.e._ Anglo-Saxon). The “French” which the Latinized Franks and Burgundians spoke in the seventh to the tenth centuries was remarkably like the Rumansch language of Switzerland, judging from the vestiges that remain in old documents.--H. H. J.

[337] _A General History of Europe_, Thatcher and Schwill.

[338] N. B.--Vik-ings, not Vi-kings. Vik = a fiord or inlet.

[339] _Vide_ Stubbs’ _History of Germany in the Middle Ages_, and Bryce’s _Holy Roman Empire_.

[340] The Lateran was the earlier palace of the Popes in Rome. Later they occupied the Vatican.

[341] Eginhard’s _Life of Karl the Great_. (Glaister.)

[342] The addition was discreetly opposed by Leo III. “In the correspondence between them the Pope assumes the liberality of a statesman and the prince descends to the prejudice and passions of a priest.”--Gibbon, chap. lx.

[343] The Byzantine style in Gaul is, I fancy, much earlier than Charlemagne, and goes back to the 4th century or earlier. See Rivoira’s _History of Lombard Architecture_, or T. G. Jackson’s _History of Gothic Architecture_.--E. B.

[344] See L. Brechier, _L’Eglise et l’Orient au Moyen Age_.

[345] Gibbon mentions a second Theodora, the sister of Marozia.

[346] This period is a tangled one. The authority is Gregorovius, _History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages_ (an excellent general book from A.D. 400 to 1527), vol. iii of the Eng. trans., p. 249 seq. John X owed the tiara to his mistress, the elder Theodora, but he was “the foremost statesman of his age” (Gregorovius, p. 259). He fell in 928 owing to Marozia. John XI became Pope in 931 (after two Popes had intervened in the period 928-931); he was Marozia’s son, possibly by Pope Sergius III. John XII did not come at once after John XI, who died in 936; there were several Popes in between; and he became Pope in 955.--E. B.

[347] There were three dynasties of emperors in the early Middle Ages:

Saxon: Otto I (962) to Henry II, ending 1024.

Salian: Conrad II to Henry V, ending about 1125.

Hohenstaufen: Conrad III to Frederic II, ending in 1250.

The Hohenstaufens were Swabian in origin. Then came the Habsburgs with Rudolph I in 1273, who lasted until 1918.

[348] These dates are from Gibbon. Beazley gives 865, 904-7, 935, 944, 971-2. (_History of Russia_, Clarendon Press.)

[349] “A Turkish people whose leaders had adopted Judaism,” says Harold Williams.

[350] For the development of the papacy, see H. W. C. Davis, _Mediæval Europe_.

[351] E. Barker, art. “Crusades,” _Encyclopædia Britannica_.

[352] Technically only twice, the excommunication of 1245 was a renewal by Innocent IV of that of 1239.--E. B.

[353] “The custody of the _True Cross_, which on Easter Sunday was solemnly exposed to the people, was entrusted to the Bishop of Jerusalem; and he alone might gratify the curious devotion of the pilgrims, by the gift of small pieces, which they encased in gold or gems, and carried away in triumph to their respective countries. But, as this gainful branch of commerce must soon have been annihilated, it was found convenient to suppose that the marvellous wood possessed a secret power of vegetation, and that its substance, though continually diminished, still remained entire and unimpaired.”--Gibbon.

[354] The Popes inhabited the palace of the Lateran until 1305, when a French Pope set up the papal court at Avignon. When the Pope returned to Rome in 1377 the Lateran was almost in ruins, and the palace of the Vatican became the seat of the papal court. It was, among other advantages, much nearer to the papal stronghold, the Castle of San Angelo.

[355] He was crowned emperor in 1220 by Honorius III, the successor of Innocent.

[356] Some authorities deny his authorship of this letter. See A. L. Smith’s _Church and State in the Middle Ages_.

[357] Perhaps parchment, rather than leather. Such promises on parchment were also used by the Carthaginians. Was Frederick’s money an inheritance from an old tradition living on in Sicily since Carthaginian times?--E. B.

[358] _Encyclopædia Britannica_, art. “Frederick II.”

[359] In relation to this section, see the chapter on the “Unity of the Middle Ages” in F. S. Marvin’s _Unity of Western Civilization_.

[360] See Paul Sabatier’s _Vie de S. Francois d’Assise_ (English trans. by Houghton).

[361] _Encyclopædia Britannica_, art. “Dominic.”

[362] J. H. Robinson.

[363] Sir Mark Sykes, _The Caliphs’ Last Heritage_.

[364] Sir Mark Sykes, _The Caliphs’ Last Heritage_.

[365] But see Pastor, _History of the Popes_, Vol. I.

[366] See Beazley, Forbes and Birkett’s _Russia_ for a fuller account of the Cossacks and also see later chap. xxxvi, § 10.

[367] See Malleson’s _Akbar_, in the _Rulers of India_ series.

[368] “Mogul” is our crude rendering of the Arabic spelling Mughal, which itself was a corruption of Mongol, the Arabic alphabet having no symbol for _ng_.--H. H. J.

[369] Dr. Schmit in Helmolt’s _History of the World_.

[370] I do not think this is fair. See _Edinburgh Review_ for January, 1920, article on Calcutta University Commission.--E. B.

But popular education!--H. G. W.

[371] Renascence here means rebirth, and it is applied to the recovery of the entire Western world. It is not to be confused with “the Renaissance,” an educational, literary, and artistic revival that went on in Italy and the Western world affected by Italy during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The Renaissance was only a part of the Renascence of Europe. The Renaissance was a revival due to the exhumation of classical art and learning; it was but one factor in the very much larger and more complicated resurrection of European capacity and vigour, with which we are dealing in this chapter.

[372] The early Frankish and other German kings were not elective. They were hereditary; but as there was no primogeniture, there was either partition among the sons, or a struggle to decide which son or relative should succeed. In such a struggle the nobles might take part, and this might mean some form of election. But heredity is the thing: _reges ex nobilitate sumunt_, says Tacitus: the king must have the nobility of being Woden-born, or he cannot be king. The genealogies of our early Saxon kings all go back to Woden, and George V is Woden-born.--E. B.

[373] But the Jews were already holding their community together by systematic education at least as early as the beginning of the Christian era.

[374] The Greeks had this idea.--E. B.

[375] I do not think this is just. The Anglo-Saxons were not anti-monastic. They were converted by Benedictine monks in 600; just after 700 they sent out monks to convert Germany; about 960, under Dunstan and Edgar, they experienced a monastic revival. The Normans after 1066 introduced the Cluniac and Cistercian orders, and spread monasticism, while the earlier Northmen, after 900, were quite favourable to the Church in England.

Note that Gregory’s imposition of celibacy on the clergy was accepted, and willingly accepted, by the contemporary lay world. William the Conqueror, through Archbishop Lanfranc, enforced celibacy in England.--E. B.

[376] Wycliffe believed in a real presence--but he held that it was spiritual and not substantial. The host was two things--bread, and at the same time a spiritual Christ. This is not the “memorial” view.--E. B.

[377] Lützow’s _Bohemia_.

[378] Dr. C. O. Stallybrass says that this plague reached China thirty or forty years after its first appearance in Europe. Ibn Batuta, the Arab traveller, who was in China from 1342 to 1346, first met with it on his return to Damascus. The Black Death is the human form of a disease endemic among the jerboas and other small rodents in the districts round the head of the Caspian Sea.

[379] The seeds of conflict which grew up into the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 were sown upon ground which is strangely familiar to any writer in 1920. A European catastrophe had reduced production and consequently increased the earnings of workers and traders. Rural wages had risen by 48 per cent in England, when an unwise executive endeavored to enforce in the Ordinance and Statute of Labourers (1350-51) a return to the pre-plague wages and prices of 1346, and aimed a blow in the Statute of 1378 against labour combinations. The villeins were driven to desperation by the loss of their recent increase of comfort, and the outbreak came, as Froissart saw it from the angle of the Court, “all through the too great comfort of the commonalty.” Other ingredients which entered into the outbreak were the resentment felt by the new working class at the restrictions imposed on its right to combine, the objection of the lower clergy to papal taxes, and a frank dislike of foreigners and landlords. There was no touch of Wycliffe’s influence in the rising. It was at its feeblest in Leicestershire, and it murdered one of the only other Liberal churchmen in England.--P. G.

[380] See article “Typography” in the _Encyclo. Brit._

[381] Standard Italian dates from Dante (1300); standard English from Chaucer and Wycliffe (1380); standard German from Luther (1520).--E. B.

[382] But Nonconformity was stamped out in Germany. See § 11 B of this chapter.

[383] “If I were writing a history of democracy,” comments E. B., “I should deal first with democracy in religion, which is Calvinism, founded by a great Frenchman at Geneva, and then with democracy in politics, which is the French Revolution, inaugurated by another great Frenchman at Geneva, Rousseau. (The parallel of these two is striking--both typical exponents of the French genius, in its ardent logic and its apostolic fervour which gives in a burning lava to the world the findings of its logic.) It is noticeable in England how democracy in religion (Presbyterianism, which is simply Calvinism, plus Independency or Congregationalism) leads straight under the Stuarts to the English democratic ideas of the seventeenth century. I do not think the democratic element in Protestantism is sufficiently appreciated in the text. Even Luther, in the early days of 1520, could write _The Freedom of a Christian Man_ and champion the priesthood of each believer and his direct access to his Maker. Luther, it is true, changed by 1525, and became a monarchist, the apostle of a state religion, under a godly prince who was _summus episcopus_. Anglicanism was from the first a monarchist religion, under a Henry VIII who was _supremum caput_. But if Lutheranism became, and Anglicanism was from the first, a religion of the State, Calvinism was always the religion of resistance to the State--in Holland and in Scotland most especially. The Reformation thus produced two opposite effects in politics; so far as it was Lutheran and Anglican it was monarchist; so far as it was Calvinistic, it was democratic. It is at first sight curious, but it is really quite natural, that the Catholics of the counter-reformation should also have been democratic. The Catholics could not admit the control of the monarch in the sphere of religion any more than the Calvinist; and here, as in other things (_e.g_. in the claim to possession of infallible truth), the Catholic priest and the Calvinistic presbyter were agreed. Filmer, an exponent of Anglican monarchism, expresses this well when he says, in speaking of the doctrine of a social contract, that ‘Cardinal Bellarmine and Calvin both look asquint this way.’ For the doctrine of a social contract was the democratic doctrine put forward by Catholics and Calvinists in opposition to the Lutheran and Anglican doctrine of divine right.”

[384] Aristotle’s _Organon_, or logic, had always been in part known to the West and was known as a whole after about 1130. In the thirteenth century the rest of his writings became known, in two ways. One way was that of direct translation from the Greek into Latin: it was in this way that St. Thomas Aquinas knew the _Ethics_ and the _Politics_ (the latter translated about 1260 by William of Moerbeke, Archbishop of Corinth in the Latin Empire of Constantinople started under Baldwin of Flanders in 1204, and a Fleming himself). The other way was that of indirect translation, that is to say, of translations of Arabic paraphrases of, or commentaries on, the works of Aristotle, such as had been made by Averroes and by Avicenna before him. It was Aristotle’s _Physics_ and (I think) _Metaphysics_ that first became known in this way. In this latter way the West received a version of Aristotle which, like Bottom the Weaver, was strangely “translated.” Sometimes translations were made direct from Arabic into Latin; sometimes they were made first into Hebrew, and then new translations were made from Hebrew into Latin. As the Arabic version of Aristotle was not always itself direct, but sometimes made from Syriac versions of the Greek, confusion became confounded. The Latin translations of the Arabic Aristotle sometimes contained not translation, but _transliteration_ of Arabic words or sentences; and Roger Bacon very naturally objected to their unintelligibility. What is more, Aristotle’s views, as well as his words, were transmogrified in the process. But the important thing is that for Aristotle’s _Organon_, _Ethics_, and _Politics_ there were direct translations from the Greek. (See Sandys’ _History of Classical Scholarship_ and Renan’s _Averroes et l’Averroisme_.)--E. B.

[385] I do not agree with this paragraph. In the first sentence things are alleged about Realism which are not justified. It was the philosophy of the priests and most humane thinkers of the Middle Ages, of St. Anselm and of John Wycliffe. Nor is it true that Realism was the philosophy of the church. It was, in the early Middle Ages; but after Occam (1330) Nominalism triumphed, and was the philosophy of the church till the Reformation. Luther denounced Nominalism.--E. B.

[386] _Encyclopædia Britannica_, article “Scholasticism.”

[387] _The Medieval Mind_, by Henry Osborn Taylor.

[388] This gives a wrong impression about Nominalism, that it was banned in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The contrary is the case. The attempt of 1339 came to nothing; that of 1473 was belated and unsuccessful. Except Wycliffe, there is no considerable thinker of these centuries, so far as I know, who is not Nominalist. The triumph of Nominalism was no unmixed benefit. Its insistence on study of the individual was indeed favourable to natural science; and Harnack says that it led to good work in psychology. But its nescience about Universals led to obscurantism in theology. Wycliffe as a Realist could hold that God acted _secundum rationes exemplares_, by certain and known universal rules; the Nominalists reduced God to inscrutable omnipotence. They went on to add that He could therefore only be known at all by the miraculous intervention of the mass through the priesthood. Their scepticism about Universals thus overleapt itself, and fell on the other side, into obscurantist ecclesiasticism.--E. B.

[389] _Cp._ chap. ii, § 1, towards the end.

[390] See Gregory’s _Discovery_, chap. vi.

[391] Not from 1340-1360, under Edward III, but later under Henry V, 1413-1422.--E. B.

Edward had Flemish and Bavarian allies.--H. G. W.

[392] From Dr. Tille in Helmolt’s _History of the World_.

[393] Charles Dickens in his _American Notes_ mentions swine in Broadway, New York, in the middle nineteenth century.

[394] In these maritime adventures in the eastern Atlantic and the west African coast the Portuguese were preceded in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and early fifteenth centuries by Normans, Catalonians, and Genoese. See Raymond Beazley, _History of Exploration in the Middle Ages_.--H. H. J.

[395] See Guillemard’s _Ferdinand Magellan_.

[396] For an interesting account of these American civilizations, see L. Spence, _The Civilization of Ancient Mexico and Myths of Mexico and Peru_.

[397] See Prescott’s _History of the Conquest of Mexico_ and his _History of the Conquest of Peru_.

[398] See Cunninghame Graham’s _A Vanished Arcadia_.

[399] Machiavelli examines the causes of Cæsar’s collapse, but he holds that it was due to _fortuna_, against which Cæsar’s _virtú_ could not prevail.--E. B.

[400] E. B. writes as follows: “I think better of Machiavelli than you do, and especially on two points. (1) He raises a real issue--whether, when a crisis besets the State, the ruler is not bound to abandon the rules of private morality, if by doing so he can preserve the State. If he abandons those rules, he does _wrong_--and Machiavelli admits that--but, at the same time, as the agent and organ of the State, he does _right_ by preserving it, so far, at any rate, as it is right that it should be preserved. This is a real issue, which one cannot simply dismiss. _E.g._, all war is wrong, by the rules of private morality, because it is killing; but it may have a qualified and conditioned rightness if it is necessary to preserve the State, and if the State, as a scheme of good life, ought to be preserved. (2) Machiavelli did believe in the people. He only exalts the _new_ prince, who arises to restore order and security in a troubled State. In normal times he believes that the people is a good judge of men: that ‘better than many fortresses is not to be hated by the people’; that the trite proverb, ‘He who founds himself on the people founds himself on mud,’ is untrue, except as applied to demagogues.”

[401] But he had a better reason for doing this in the fact that there was no heir to the throne. The Wars of the Roses, a bitter dynastic war, were still very vivid in the minds of English people.--F. H. H.

[402] Prescott’s Appendix to Robertson’s _History of Charles V._

[403] Prescott.

[404] It was private _conscience_, rather than private property, that quarrelled with and limited princes. The Puritan Revolution in England (1640-1660) was a puritan revolution--it sprang from the religious motive first and foremost. The economic motive was secondary. The “economic interpretation of history” is always tempting, but men’s souls have always mattered more than their pockets. Englishmen fought Charles I for the sake of free consciences rather than for the sake of free pockets. This is a large issue, on which much could be written; but I feel sure that religion came first in our Civil War.--E. B.

I do not agree. Loath as I am to differ from E. B., I can find no evidence of any religious issue as important as the issue of taxation either in the English Civil War or the American War of Independence.--H. G. W.

I did not mention the Americans. I will surrender them to H. G. W.--E. B.

[405] Englishmen did try to control the foreign policy of James I, because it involved questions of religion, and because their primary concern was religious. They wanted foreign policy to be directed to the militant defence of Protestantism. James I, a good internationalist (in his way), and at any rate a lover of peace, wanted to secure European peace by diplomacy--and failed to do so. His parliaments, and all seventeenth-century parliaments, were vitally interested in foreign policy.--E. B.

[406] A very good general history of Great Britain, too little known as yet, is A. D. Innes’ _History of the British Nation_ (1912).

[407] This is not the same Simon de Montfort as the leader of the crusades against the Albigenses, but his son.

[408] But Sir Joshua Reynolds, Hogarth, Gray, Gibbon, for instance!--G. M. And the golden age of the great cabinet-makers!--P. G.

Exactly! Culture taking refuge in the portraits, libraries, and households of a few rich people. No national culture in the court, nor among the commonalty; a steady decay.--H. G. W.

[409] _Rise of the Dutch Republic._

[410] See his fragment of autobiography (_The Autobiography of Edward Gibbon_, edited by John Murray).

[411] Frederick the Great of Prussia.

[412] Catherine the Great of Russia.

[413] Louis XVI of France and Charles III of Spain.

[414] Gibbon forgets here that cannon and the fundamentals of modern military method came to Europe with the Mongols.

[415] See for the expansion of the topics of this section, Hammond’s _Town Labourer_, _Village Labourer_, and _Skilled Labourer_. These three books are too little known to the general reader. They are not dry-as-dust compilations of statistics, but full of interesting matter and delightfully well written.

[416] “Our present public school system is candidly based on training a dominant master class. But the uprising of the workers and modern conditions are rapidly making the _dominant method_ unworkable.... The change in the aim of schools will transform all the organizations and methods of schools, and my belief is that this change will make the new era.”--F. W. Sanderson, Head Master of Oundle, in an address at Leeds, February 16, 1920.

[417] The student who looks up the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, article “Goldsmith,” instead of going to the poem itself, will find some hostile comments thereon which are themselves now literature and history; they were written by Lord Macaulay (1800-59).

[418] Channing’s excellent new _History of the United States_ to vol. iv. has been our handbook here.

[419] You are, I think, unjust to Great Britain and her “great power game.” She was not playing that game--or, so far as she was, she was acting against “France” to liberate the colonies from the French menace in the hinterland which alarmed them. Once liberated, they broke loose, somewhat selfishly, refusing to pay the piper, though they had enjoyed, and done much to call, the tune. Great Britain was indeed to blame, not on the “great power” ground, but on the “sovereignty” ground, which made her stickle for the “sovereignty” of the British parliament over colonial legislature. It wasn’t diplomatists, it was lawyers in both countries, who precipitated the struggle of 1776.--E. B.

But see §§ 2 and 3.--H. G. W.

[420] See Channing’s _History of the United States_, vol. ii.

[421] _John Smith’s Travels._

[422] There is some doubt about the name of Carolina. Channing, in his short history, says it was named in honour of Charles II. Bassett says it was named originally Carolana, in honour of Charles I, in 1629, and kept the name, under the new form of Carolina in honour of Charles II. Fiske, _Old Virginia and Her Neighbors_, vol. i. p. 265, speaks of Carolina, in 1629, as named “either in honour of Charles I or because the name had been given by Huguenots in 1562 in honour of Charles IX of France.” Another authority speaks of the name as used before, and now no doubt retained in honour of the English king; but, according to him, the name had not been used for the country (called, by the French, Florida), but for a fort in it, the arx Carolana. He adds that in 1629 the name Carolana is used, but Carolina appears afterwards, and becomes normal after 1662.--E. B.

[423] From the Spanish word Sabaña = “meadow.”--H. H. J.

[424] See for the fundamental differences of north and south, W. Wilson, _The State_, the historical sections at the beginning of the chapter on the United States Government.--E. B.

[425] An admirable account of negro slavery is to be found in Sir H. H. Johnston’s _The Negro in the New World_.

[426] I disbelieve in this “commercial selfishness” emphasized in the text. Modern American historians, such as Beer, themselves rebut the charge. On the whole, English commercial policy was fair. (1) If the colonists could only export certain “enumerated” commodities to England, the English market was the best, and they were given privileges there; while non-enumerated commodities could be exported anywhere, and even “enumerated” articles were in practice smuggled everywhere. (2) If the colonists had to import from England, it was their best market, and they got “drawbacks” on dutiable goods imported into England from the Continent when they took them out of England; while again in practice they freely smuggled goods from any country to America. (3) The English navigation laws, in the long run, encouraged American shipbuilding; and if some colonial manufactures were stopped in order that they might not compete with English manufactures, the amount of such restriction was slight. On all this, see Sir William Ashley, _Surveys Historic and Economic_, pp. 300 _seqq._--E. B.

[427] See Tudor’s _Life of James Otis_.

[428] I disagree entirely with this. George, with the bulk of Parliament behind him, was out to insist on the sovereignty of the British Parliament (not of himself) over the colonists. Nor was it the Whig noblemen who opposed him, but Burke (conservatively inclined, and therefore up in arms for the traditional rights of the colonial legislatures) and Chatham (liberally inclined, and therefore up in arms for the principle of “no representation, no taxation”).--E. B.

[429] This again in my view is wrong. The system proposed, I read in an American writer, meant cheaper tea in the colonies. The objection taken by the colonists was legal.--E. B.

[430] I think this gives an erroneous impression that there was no real chance of reconciliation in 1776. There was. And indeed the whole separation was far from inevitable. If the British had (1) recognized the autonomy in each colony of its legislature, and (2) granted to the colonies cabinet government in place of government by governors sent from England, there would have been no schism. By 1839, the time of Lord Durham’s report, the British had learned to make the recognition and the grant; and with greater wisdom they could have made both in 1776. A great statesman in 1776 could have stopped the separation, and made history different. I am inclined to say that nothing is inevitable in history--except that when you don’t have good men, you don’t get good results. And that was the position under George III and Lord North.--E. B.

[431] The Tripoli Treaty, see Channing, vol. iii. chap. xviii.

[432] Wells, _The Future in America_.

[433] In 1776 Lord Dartmouth wrote that the colonists could not be allowed “to check or discourage a traffic so beneficent to the nation.”

[434] A very readable and remarkably well-illustrated book for the general reader upon the French Revolution is Wheeler’s _French Revolution_. Carlyle’s _French Revolution_ has some splendid passages, but it is often unjust and evil-spirited. Madelin’s _French Revolution_ is a good recent book.

[435] But see Rocquain’s _L’Esprit révolutionnaire avant la Révolution_. He traces the growth of a revolutionary spirit in the 18th century, and points to many predictions of a debacle in 18th-century French literature.--E. B.

[436] I disagree utterly and entirely with this view of Rousseau, which is quite unfair to the man who wrote _Du Contrat Social_. (1) He did _not_ believe in the “state of nature”; he believed in the State, which had lifted man from being a brute that followed its nose into a reasoning being and a man. (2) He did not write to excuse breakers of the covenant. On the contrary, he wrote to preach the sovereignty of the general will, and he believed in the entire control of the individual by that will. Rousseau has been much misrepresented, and the text follows the misrepresentations. See Vaughan, _The Political Writings of Rousseau_, introduction to _Du Contrat Social_.--E. B.

[437] Article “France,” _Encyclopædia Britannica_.

[438] There is a very picturesque account of the storming of the Bastille in Carlyle’s _French Revolution_, book v, chap. vi.

[439] Carlyle is at his best on this flight, _French Revolution_, book iv, chaps. iv and v.

[440] Wiriath.

[441] The Declaration of Pillnitz was a diplomatic _démarche_ that failed. Great Britain had definitely refused to intervene in favour of the French monarchy, and Austrian statesmanship proposed to save the collective face of European monarchy by a sounding announcement of sympathy with the French Bourbons, followed by a proviso that unanimity should be secured before intervention was attempted. French opinion (and most historians) concentrated on the announcement and overlooked the proviso.--P.G.

[442] The sour grapes of Champagne spread dysentery in the Prussian army.--P.G.

[443] The intelligence of the French army of the Revolution was largely due to a period of intelligent military thinking and writing which set in among French soldiers after the defeats of the army of Louis XV in the Seven Years War. Napoleon himself was full of traces of this inspiration.--P. G.

[444] I cannot agree that England was ever, at any moment, “a prospective ally” of France. There was a deep divergence of interests; and it is impossible to think of Pitt and the Whig nobles being in any way the allies of the France of 1793.--E. B.

[445] In his article, “French Revolutionary Wars,” in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_.

[446] In the thirteen months before June, 1794, there were 1220 executions; in the following seven weeks there were 1376.--P. G.

[447] Channing, vol. iii. chap. xviii.

[448] Two very useful books have been Holland Rose’s _Personality of Napoleon_ and his _Life of Napoleon I_. A compact and convenient biography, with good battle maps, is R. M. Johnston’s _Napoleon_. Thomas Hardy’s great epic-drama, _The Dynasts_, is a magnificent picture of Napoleon’s career, historically very exact. It is one of the great stars of English literature, too little known as yet to the general public.

[449] See Mahan’s _Life of Nelson_.

[450] Gourgaud quoted by Holland Rose.

[451] The resumption of war was more directly due to the publication in France of the Sebastiani Report, a full account by the staff officer of the ports and strong places of Egypt and Syria. The alarm occasioned by this document hardened the determination of the British government to retain a garrison at Malta in spite of the obligation to evacuate it imposed by the Peace of Amiens.--P. G.

[452] All this is admirably told in Tolstoy’s wonderful _War and Peace_.

[453] The best textbook to follow in expanding this chapter is W. A. Phillips’ _Confederation of Europe_.

[454] See J. W. Headlam’s _Life of Bismarck_.

[455] W. A. Phillips’ _Confederation of Europe_ is the leading textbook here. H. E. Egerton’s _British Foreign Policy in the Nineteenth Century_ and L. S. Woolf’s _International Government_ are very illuminating. See also Thatcher and Schwill’s convenient _General History of Europe_ and Philip Guedalla’s _Partition of Europe; 1715-1815_.

[456] The Dukes of Savoy (ancestors of the present Italian kings) had been astride the Alps, ruling in France and Italy, for centuries; and their strategic position had long given them a European importance. The Dukes of Savoy had been kings since 1713, first as Kings of Sicily, 1713-20, and then (when Sicily was exchanged for Sardinia in 1720) as Kings of Sardinia.--E. B.

[457] An excellent book on the substance of this chapter is F. S. Marvin’s _Century of Hope_. Another is R. A. Gregory’s _Discovery_. See also Seignobos’ _Political History of Contemporary Europe_.

[458] But note Boyle and Sir Wm. Hamilton as conspicuous scientific men who were Irishmen.

[459] It is worth noting that nearly all the great inventors in England during the eighteenth century were working men, that inventions proceeded from the workshop, and not from the laboratory. It is also worth noting that only two of these inventors accumulated fortunes and founded families.--E. B.

[460] Here America led the old world.

[461] In Northumberland and Durham in the early days of coal mining they were so cheaply esteemed that it was unusual to hold inquests on the bodies of men killed in mine disasters.

[462] It is sometimes argued against Marx that the proportion of people who have savings invested has increased in many modern communities. These savings are technically “capital” and their owners “capitalists” to that extent, and this is supposed to contradict the statement of Marx that property concentrates into few and fewer hands. Marx used many of his terms carelessly and chose them ill, and his ideas were better than his words. When he wrote property he meant “property so far as it is power.” The small investor has remarkably little power over his invested capital.

[463] See J. H. Noyes, _History of American Socialisms_, and Eastlake, _The Oneida Community_.

[464] See his _A New View of Society, or Essays on the Principles of the Formation of the Human Character_.

[465] See F. Podmore, _Life of Robert Owen_, or his own _Life of Robert Owen, Written by Himself_.

[466] Increases or diminutions of the passive shareholding class would not affect this concentration very materially. A shareholder has very little power over his property.

[467] I find in a book of essays and addresses by Professor Soddy an interesting and compact statement of certain resemblances in spirit between scientific research and modern socialism. I venture to quote a passage here because of its great significance at the present time.

“The immense acquisition,” he says, “to the wealth and resources of mankind which has been the result of the past century of science, should have been the golden opportunity of statesmen and humanitarians and the raw material out of which the sum total of human happiness could have been augmented. Instead, it has but revealed a growing incapacity and failure on the part of the altruist to appreciate the nature and power of the new weapon that science has placed in his hands, and an ever-increasing rapacity and far-sightedness on the part of the egotist to secure it for his own ends.

“For many a decade now, owing primarily and indisputably to the intellectual achievements of a comparative handful of men of communistic and cloisteral habit of thought, a steady shower of material benefits has been raining down upon humanity, and for these benefits men have fought in the traditional manner of the struggle when the fickle sunlight was the sole hazardous income of the world. The strong have fed and grown fat upon a larger and ever larger share of the manna. Initial slight differences of strength and sagacity have become so emphasized by the virile stream that the more successful are becoming monstrously so, and the unsuccessful less and less able to secure a full meal than before the shower began.

“Already it savours of indelicacy and tactlessness to recall that the exploiters of all this wealth are not its creators; that the spirit of acquisitiveness which has ensured success to them, rather than to their immediate neighbours, is the antithesis of the spirit by which the wealth was won.

“Amid all the sneers at the impracticability and visionary character of communist schemes, let it not be forgotten that science is a communism, neither theoretical nor on paper, but actual and in practice. The results of those who labour in the fields of knowledge for its own sake are published freely and pooled in the general stock for the benefit of all. Common ownership of all its acquisitions is the breath of its life. Secrecy or individualism of any kind would destroy its fertility.”

So far Professor Soddy, but let the writer add that there is this point about the scientific world not to be overlooked. Every worker in the latter is a specially educated man, and he is free to leave the communism of science if he thinks fit. This is very different from a communism imposed upon an unprepared mass of people containing large recalcitrant minorities or majorities. A communism sustained by a community of will based on education--an extension, that is, of the communism of scientific research to human affairs generally--is the ideal underlying the political ideas of most intelligent modern men.

[468] We may note a very interesting experiment in wages payment here that has been made by the American Oneida silver company. A committee on which the workers are strongly represented makes a summary week by week of the current prices of staple commodities and common necessities. Week by week it is noted that prices are so much per cent, above the normal figure of January, 1914 (or some such date), which is taken as the standard. On pay-day every worker receives his wages _plus_ a percentage representing the higher prices, so that though the actual sums paid vary week by week, the purchasing power of the wages paid remains practically constant. Here, perhaps, we have a germ of a system that may grow to considerable importance. The burthen of rising prices is shifted to the employer, who can take them into account in fixing his prices.

[469] For a closely parallel view of religion to that given here, see that admirable book, _Outspoken Essays_, by Dean Inge, Essays VIII and IX on _St. Paul_ and on _Institutionalism and Mysticism_.

[470] _Town Topics_, November 26th, 1919.

[471] Kropotkin’s _Mutual Aid_ is worth noting here as one of the earliest correctives to these popular misconceptions of Darwinism.--G. M.

[472] Morley’s _Life of Gladstone_.

[473] R. A. Gregory’s _Discovery_.

[474] The great Oxford school of _Literæ Humaniores_, which means a serious study of Ancient Philosophy and Ancient History, was already thirty years old in Gladstone’s time, and was a really serious training in solid philosophy and solid history. It was all the more serious, as every candidate for Honours had to take _two_ schools and to offer Mathematics as well as _Literæ Humaniores_. Both Peel (about 1810) and Gladstone (about 1830) took these two schools, and both gained Firsts in both. (This, by the way, is the only true and genuine “double first.”) Men with such a training were genuinely and nobly trained for statesmanship.--E. B.

With no knowledge of ethnology, no vision of history as a whole, misconceiving the record of geology, ignorant of the elementary ideas of biological science, of modern political, social, and economic science and modern thought and literature!--H. G. W.

[475] The old classical training had great faults, but not quite those which are here imputed to it. It was the education of an aristocratic leisured class who had not to earn their living. Hence it was (1) entirely idealist and non-utilitarian. It aimed not at fitting people for a paid profession, but at culture and inner development. (2) It depended enormously on _leisure_. The work done in compulsory work-hours was small in range, but severe, almost entirely classics and mathematics. These were intended as a training of the mind and a test of ability, but were not the real field of ambition. That lay in the large amount of time allotted to _free study_. Peel, Gladstone, Macaulay, Hallam, etc., show what was expected of the best men. Literature, modern history, French and Italian, theology and philosophy, and even a good deal of generalised science, were things you read in your free time. Think what Macaulay’s “schoolboy” was supposed to know, and reflect that practically none of it was taught in school hours! Some of the best papers on English literature that I ever read were done by a certain sixth form which had, I was told, no time at all given to the subject in the time-table. As the Head Master told me, “A good man was rather laughed at if he did not know Shakespeare and Milton.”

This conception of a small hard nucleus of compulsory work, combined with a wide margin of leisure, was very good for the best men, who used their free time in the right way, but left the weak men thoroughly uneducated. The reaction against it came with long hours, wide curriculum, and compulsory games, leaving no leisure either for study or for mischief.

The modern idea that school should teach _all_ that a boy ought to know, is educationally disastrous; but it is the natural result of boys coming from uneducated homes. The home, not the school, is the real key to the wider and higher side of education. But this raises large questions.--G. M.

G. M., I submit, has not grasped the modern idea in education. The modern idea of a public school as exemplified in such a case as Oundle does not fill up the time of the boy with prescribed work and games; it leaves large spaces for self-development; but also it provides museums, a good collection of pictures, libraries, and an abundance of good music in addition to the mere “playing fields” of the old type of public school. And it inquires into the use a boy is making of his free energies. The phase of “cram” is over, but the new schools do provide good pasture, show the way thither, and “vet” a boy who displays no appetite. G. M. ignores entirely the clear statement in the text that Gladstone was a grossly _ignorant_ man, and the instances given of the feebleness and worthlessness of the “generalized science” these boys of the old persuasion picked up. So far from the old classical training being the education of an aristocratic class, it was, as G. M. admits within a line or so, the education of a few individuals, the rest of the class remaining barbarians. It may have aimed at culture and inner development, but it missed its aim. Consequently, the bright lads of the Gladstone-Macaulay-Peel type who did not pick up a few enlightened ideas by accident or at home, were quite unable to carry their own class with them; it remained politically boorish. They had to appeal for understanding to classes whose education had been free from “classical” pretentiousness....

These notes submitted to E. B. at this stage provoked him to a warm protest. His sympathies were “heart and soul with G. M.,” and Mr. Gladstone, he declared with emphasis, was not an ignorant man. A little more must be said on this question. If the reader realize, what we have been trying to make clear in this history, that human progress is largely mental progress, a clearing and an enlargement of ideas, then he will understand why it is that the compiler of this _Outline_ has given so much space here to these controversial notes upon the education of Mr. Gladstone. For the education of Mr. Gladstone was typical of that ruling-class education which has dominated British and European affairs, so far as they have been dominated by ideas, up to the present time. It is most significant of the differences and difficulties of our age that the statement, which seemed to the writer a simple statement of an obvious fact, that Mr. Gladstone was a profoundly ignorant man, should have so scandalized two of the editors of this work. No doubt Mr. Gladstone knew much and knew many things, and it is just because he did so and was in many respects the fine flower of the education of his period, that his ignorance is so interesting to us. Many Chinese mandarins knew much and many things--beautifully. And were ignorant men. Mr. Gladstone’s was not the ignorance of deficiency, but the ignorance of excess, a copious ignorance; it was not a failure to know this or that particular fact, an ignorance excusable enough, but a profound and sought-after and established ignorance of reality, so that he did not grasp the bearing of definite facts presented to him or of far-reaching ideas put before him, upon the great issues with which he was concerned. He lived, as it were, in a luminous and blinding cloud. That cloud, which I call his ignorance, my two editors call his wonderful and abounding culture. It was a culture that wrapped about and adorned the great goddess Reality. But indeed he is not to be adorned but stripped. She ceases to be herself or to bless her votary unless she is faced stark and faced fearlessly.--H. G. W.

[476] The impression made on me, an old Gladstonian, by Gladstone’s politics, was mainly twofold. (1) A strong assertion that politics were (as Aristotle said) a development of ethics, and concerned with discovering and doing what is Right, not what is convenient or profitable to any particular class or nation. (2) A strong subconscious suggestion that the highest education and culture and knowledge were useful for politics, which was in fact a very high practical art, demanding the highest qualities. Hence largely the horror we had of Dizzy. (3) A general sanguine conviction that Honesty was the best policy; that what was right would also prove to be ultimately the most profitable, so that there was no real conflict.

I do not say that Mr. G. acted consistently up to these principles, or that they could be acted up to; but they formed the milk of the word for most of us.--G. M.

I cannot agree that Gladstone was a prophet of nationalism. He was a prophet of Liberalism, and, as such, a hater of oppression. He protested against Bourbon oppression in Naples or Turkish oppression in Bulgaria or Armenia; but to protest against oppression is not to champion nationalism. Gladstone championed not nationalism, but internationalism; he emphasized the idea that “public right” should control the relations of states. The fine words which Mr. Asquith used to state the British cause in August, 1914, were (unless I am mistaken) an echo of Gladstone’s own words. A noble objection to oppression; a noble championing of the rule of public right--these were the staples of Gladstone’s prophecy. The pity was that, when it came to the actual handling of foreign affairs (_e.g._ in Egypt about 1884), Gladstone could not translate his ideals into practice.--E. B.

[477] G. B. Stern’s _Children of No Man’s Land_ is a novel of this topic of British nationality in relation to German Jews written with great insight.

[478] The doctrine of nationalities was in reality a legacy of French revolutionary theory. From the men of the First Republic, who found it a useful excuse for a forward foreign policy in the best Richelieu tradition, it passed into the possession of Napoleon, who gave more attention to it at St. Helena than he had ever done at the Tuileries. Thence it came naturally into the political inheritance of Napoleon III, who sacrificed France to his belief in it. Gladstone only got it by a side wind, the theory having drifted into the British tradition by reason of the accident of Canning’s anti-interventionist foreign policy during the Spanish-American War of Independence.--P. G.

[479] This is a paradox to which I cannot subscribe. Please put me down as convinced of the opposite.--E. B.

[480] Albert Thomas in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_.

[481] There were also hopes of an Italian alliance for France, and these, combined with the anti-Prussian direction of Austrian policy, and the Franco-Russian _rapprochement_ which had followed the Crimean War, almost justified Napoleon in believing that he would not be left entirely alone.--P. G.

[482] Hence “Jingo” for any rabid patriot.

[483] See _England’s Debt to India_ by Lajpat Rai for a good statement of India’s economic grievance.

[484] Now a French Protectorate.--P. G.

[485] See Putnam Weale’s _Indiscreet Letters from Pekin_, a partly fictitious book, but true and vivid in its effects.

[486] With the exception of one wretched Dutch factory on the minute island of Deshima in the harbour of Nagasaki. The Dutch were exposed to almost unendurable indignities. They had no intercourse with any Japanese except the special officials appointed to deal with them.

[487] A new and much more liberal Maltese constitution was promulgated in June, 1920, practically putting Malta on the footing of a self-governing colony.

[488] All intelligent Englishmen or Englishwomen with a vote owe it to the Empire and themselves to read at least one book dealing with India or Egypt from the native point of view. For India, Lajpat Rai’s Political Future of India is to be recommended. A compact book running counter to the views in this text, and giving the Church missionary point of view, is the Rev. W. E. S. Holland’s Goal of India. William Archer’s _India and the Future_ is an interesting display of the temperamental clash of a Nordic writer with things Dravidian. It sustains the argument that even the most high-minded Nordic type cannot be trusted to govern other races sympathetically. (See also in that matter Archer’s _In Afro-America_.) The Aga Khan’s _India in Transition_ gives very admirably the views of a liberal Indian gentleman. Sidney Low’s _A Vision of India_ is still not yet superseded as a picture of India in 1905-6, when the present stir was only brewing.

[489] A very good book for the expansion of this chapter is Stearns Davis’ (with Anderson and Tyler) _Armed Peace_, a history of Europe from 1870 to 1914. Even more illuminating is G. P. Gooch’s _History of Our Time (1885-1911)_. This is quite a tiny book, but very clear and thorough. It was revised in its present form in February, 1914, so that its title is misleading; it comes up to 1914. It contains an excellent student’s bibliography.

[490] See F. M. Hueffer’s able but badly named book, _When Blood is their Argument_. It gives an admirable account of just how the pressure was applied to the teaching organization.

[491] These quotations are from Sir Thomas Barclay’s article “Peace” in _The Encyclopædia Britannica_.

[492] St. John Ervine’s novel, _Changing Winds_, gives a good account of the mentality of this time.

[493] See the various publications of the Irish Dominion League, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin. A good recent account of Irish ideas is to be found in Lynd’s _Ireland a Nation_ (1919).

[494] Wilfred Scawen Blunt regards the English remaining in Egypt, when they had pledged themselves to go, as the greatest cause of the troubles that culminated in 1914. To pacify the French over Egypt, England connived at the French occupation of Morocco, which Germany had looked upon as her share of North Africa. Hence Germany’s bristling attitude to France, and the _revival_ in France of the _revanche_ idea, which had died down. See Blunt’s _My Diaries_, vol. i, September 30th, 1891.--A. C. W.

[495] It should not be forgotten that Italian action against Turkey was precipitated by the granting of a charter by the Sultan to an Austro-German company or syndicate for the “taking over” of the Tripolitaine: a process which could only have ended by the hoisting of the Imperial German flag on the southern shores of the Mediterranean, opposite Italy. Also, that through Morocco the Germans were attempting to undermine the French position in Algeria and Tunis by supplying the Moroccans with arms and money, and inducing them to attack French rule separately in Western Algeria, and even by way of Saharan oases in Southern Tunis. The writer of this note has actually witnessed this process going on between 1898 and 1911. He asserts that, whether from right or wrong motives, Germany forced France to tackle the thorny problem of Morocco. Either she had to do so or prepare for the evacuation of Algeria. France may have made a few mistakes, but she has conferred enormous benefits on North Africa. Under her control the indigenous population has increased remarkably.--H. H. J.

[496] The general reader who wants some picture in his mind of the recent state of Russia should read Ernest Poole’s _The Village_. Pre-revolutionary Russia is admirably sketched in Maurice Baring’s _Mainsprings of Russia_, _The Russian People_, and _A Year in Russia_. A small, very illuminating book on the Russian revolution is M. H. Barber’s _A British Nurse in Bolshevik Russia_.

[497] One very good reason for the provisional retention of the Philippines under American control is the certainty that the “Moros,” the Muhammadan peoples of Palawan, and the southern islands of the main groups would proceed to conquer the “Christian” Filipinos, and that after a welter of civil war and destruction, Japan or some other outside power would be appealed to to intervene.--H. H. J.

[498] An unfriendly critic might denounce the treaty-making power of the United States, and the machinery by which it operates, as complicated and cumbersome, ill adapted to the complex demands of international intercourse, slow in action and uncertain in outcome. The requirement of a two-thirds rather than a majority vote in the Senate he might criticize not unjustly as a dubious excess of caution.... Believe me, the American people are like for many years to accomplish through this means their compacts with mankind. The checks and balances by which it is surrounded, the free and full debate which it allows, are in their eyes virtues rather than defects. They rejoice in the fact that all engagements which affect their destinies must be spread upon the public records, and that there is not, and there never can be, a secret treaty binding them either in law or in morals. Looking back upon a diplomatic history which is not without its chapters of success, they feel that on the whole the scheme the fathers builded has served the children well. With a conservatism in matters of government as great perhaps as that of any people in the world, they will suffer much inconvenience and run the risk of occasional misunderstanding before they make a change.--J. W. Davis (U. S. A. Ambassador to Britain), _The Treaty Making Power of the United States_. (Oxf. Univ. Brit. Am. Club. Paper No. 1.)

[499] I think his policy was quite clear. He said to Germany, “If you bring on war, you must expect England to support France and Russia.” To France and Russia he said: “If you are unreasonable, do not expect England to support you.” He thus brought pressure to bear on both sides.--G. M.

An illuminating book on the causes of the war is Lord Loreburn’s _How the War Came_.--H. H. J.

[500] Kautsky’s report on the origin of the war.

[501] For the common soldier’s view of the war there is no better book than _Le Feu_ by Barbusse. An illustrated book of great quaintness, beauty, and veracity is André Hellé’s _Le Livre des Heures_. No other book recalls so completely the _feel_ and effect of the phases of the war. An admirably written and very wise book is Philip Gibbs’ _Realities of War_. Some light upon the peculiar difference of the fighting of the Great War from any previous warfare will be found in McCurdy’s _War Neuroses_ and Eder’s book on the same subject.

[502] “What mainly was wrong with our generalship was the system which put the High Command into the hands of a group of men belonging to the old school of war, unable by reason of their age and traditions to get away from rigid methods, and to become elastic in face of new conditions. Our Staff College had been hopelessly inefficient in its system of training, if I am justified in forming such an opinion from specimens produced by it, who had the brains of canaries and the manners of Potsdam. There was also a close corporation among the officers of the Regular Army, so that they took the lion’s share of Staff appointments, thus keeping out brilliant young men of the New Armies, whose brain power, to say the least of it, was on a higher level than that of the Sandhurst standard.” Philip Gibbs, _Realities of War_.

[503] “The smart society of G.H.Q. was best seen at the Officers’ Club at dinnertime. It was as much like musical comedy as any stage setting of war at the Gaiety. The band played rag-time and light music while the warriors fed, and all these generals and staff officers, with their decorations and Army bands, and polished buttons and crossed swords, were waited upon by little W.A.A.C.s., with the G.H.Q. colours tied up in bows on their hair, and khaki stockings under their short skirts, and fancy aprons. Such a chatter! Such bursts of light-hearted laughter! Such whisperings of secrets, of intrigues, and scandals in high places! Such callous-hearted courage when British soldiers were being blown to bits, gassed, blinded, maimed, and shell-shocked in places that were far, so very far, from G.H.Q.”--Phillip Gibbs, _The Realities of War_.

[504] But see Roch, _Mr. Lloyd George and the War_, and Arthur’s _Life of Lord Kitchener_.

[505] “The want of an unlimited quantity of high explosives was a fatal bar to our success.”--_The Times_, May 14th, 1915.

[506] But compare the British bombardment of Japanese towns noted in Chap. xxxix, § 11. And aeroplane bombs and machine-gun fire have since been used by the British military authorities against Indian village crowds _suspected_ of sedition.

[507] _E.g._ in hand grenades.

[508] For the flighty incapacity of the British military authorities in this adventure, see Sir Ian Hamilton’s _Gallipoli Diary_. It is only fair to the British commander to add that the incapacity was that of the home authorities to understand his demands for men and material.--P. G.

[509] See Stern, _Tanks 1914-1918_. See also Fuller, _Tanks in the Great War_.

[510] “I found a general opinion among officers and men under the command of the Fifth Army that they had been victims of atrocious staff work, tragic in its consequence. From what I saw of some of the Fifth Army staff officers, I was of the same opinion. Some of these young gentlemen, and some of the elderly officers, were arrogant and supercilious, without revealing any sign of intelligence. If they had wisdom, it was deeply camouflaged by an air of inefficiency. If they had knowledge, they hid it as a secret of their own. General Gough in Flanders, though personally responsible for many tragic happenings, was badly served by some of his subordinates, and battalion officers and divisional staffs raged against the whole of the Fifth Army organization, or lack of organization, with an extreme passion of speech.”--Philip Gibbs, _Realities of War_.

[511] A very good account of the state of mind of Paris during and after the war is in W. P. Adams’ _Paris Sees it Through_.

[512] _The Times_, December 8th, 1919.

[513] Authorities vary between 250,000 and a million houses.

[514] J. M. Keynes, _op. cit._

[515] They debauched the currency, _i.e._ and wasted money recklessly.

[516] Mr. Keynes ignores the fortunes made by deliberately cornering and withholding commodities in a time of shortage.

[517] Among the books consulted here, for this and the two following sections, were Dr. Dillon’s _Peace Conference_; H. Wilson Harris’s _The Peace in the Making_ and _President Wilson, his Problems and his Policy_; J. M. Keynes’s _Economic Consequences of the Peace_; Weyl’s _The End of the War_; Stallybrass’s _Society of States_; Brailsford’s _A League of Nations_; F. C. Howe’s _Why War?_ L. S. Woolf’s _International Government_; J. A. Hobson’s _Towards International Government_; Lowes Dickinson’s _The Choice before Us_; Sir Walter Phillimore’s _Three Centuries of Treaties_, and C. E. Fayle’s _Great Settlement_.

[518] “The Allied Governments,” the effective passage ran, “have given careful consideration to the correspondence which has passed between the President of the United States and the German Government. Subject to the qualifications which follow, they declare their readiness to make peace with the Government of Germany on the terms of peace laid down in the President’s Address to Congress of January 8th, 1918, and the principles of settlement enunciated in his subsequent Addresses.”

(Note transmitted to the German Government by the Allies through the Swiss Minister on November 5th, 1918.)

[519] In his book, _The Peace Conference_.

[520] Dillon.

[521] Dillon. And see his _The Peace Conference_, Chapter III, for instances of the amazing ignorance of various delegates.

[522] See _Clemenceau_, by C. Ducray.

[523] He wrote several novels. They are not very good novels; they incline to sentimental melodrama. _Le Plus Fort_ is now available to English readers in a translation under the title of “The Stronger.” It is tawdry and dull. A cinematograph version has been shown.

[524] Keynes.

[525] Checked by subsequent comparison with the published article in the _Jour. of the Roy. United Service Institution_, vol. lxv., No. 457, February, 1920.

[526] Cp. Psalm cxxxvi.

[527] Here is another glimpse of the agreeable dreams that fill the contemporary military mind. It is from Fuller’s recently published _Tanks in the Great War_. Colonel Fuller does not share that hostility to tanks characteristic of the older type of soldier. In the next war, he tells us: “Fast-moving tanks, equipped with tons of liquid gas ... will cross the frontier and obliterate every living thing in the fields and farms, the villages, and cities of the enemy’s country. Whilst life is being swept away around the frontier, fleets of aeroplanes will attack the enemy’s great industrial and governing centres. All these attacks will be made, at first, not against the enemy’s army ... but against the civil population, in order to compel it to accept the will of the attacker.”

For a good, well-balanced account of what modern war really means, see Philip Gibbs, _Realities of War_, already cited in two footnotes to § 8.

[528] A suggestive book here containing a good account of the drift of modern religious thought is G. W. Cooke’s _Social Evolution of Religion_.

[529] Compare Basil Thompson, _The Fijians, a Study of the Decay of Custom_; Introduction and opening chapters. This is a fine study of an ancient “heliolithic” culture breaking up under modernization.

* * * * *

Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber: