{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_11605/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_11605","id":"gutenberg_11605","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11605","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - European","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","World War, 1914-1918"],"text":"THE APPETITE OF TYRANNY\n\n_Including Letters to an Old Garibaldian_\n\n_By_ G.K. CHESTERTON\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER\n\n    THE FACTS OF THE CASE\n\nI   THE WAR ON THE WORD\n\nII  THE REFUSAL OF RECIPROCITY\n\nIII THE APPETITE OF TYRANNY\n\nIV  THE ESCAPE OF FOLLY\n\n    LETTERS TO AN OLD GARIBALDIAN\n\n\n\nTHE FACTS OF THE CASE\n\n\nUnless we are all mad, there is at the back of the most bewildering\nbusiness a story: and if we are all mad, there is no such thing as madness.\nIf I set a house on fire, it is quite true that I may illuminate many other\npeople's weaknesses as well as my own. It may be that the master of the\nhouse was burned because he was drunk; it may be that the mistress of the\nhouse was burned because she was stingy, and perished arguing about the\nexpense of the fire-escape. It is, nevertheless, broadly true that they\nboth were burned because I set fire to their house. That is the story of\nthe thing. The mere facts of the story about the present European\nconflagration are quite as easy to tell.\n\nBefore we go on to the deeper things which make this war the most sincere\nwar of human history, it is easy to answer the question of why England came\nto be in it at all, as one asks how a man fell down a coal-hole, or failed\nto keep an appointment. Facts are not the whole truth. But facts are facts,\nand in this case the facts are few and simple. Prussia, France, and\nEngland had all promised not to invade Belgium. Prussia proposed to invade\nBelgium, because it was the safest way of invading France. But Prussia\npromised that if she might break in, through her own broken promise and\nours, she would break in and not steal. In other words, we were offered at\nthe same instant a promise of faith in the future and a proposal of perjury\nin the present. Those interested in human origin may refer to an old\nVictorian writer of English, who, in the last and most restrained of his\nhistorical essays, wrote of Frederick the Great, the founder of this\nunchanging Prussian policy. After describing how Frederick broke the\nguarantee he had signed on behalf of Maria Theresa, he then describes how\nFrederick sought to put things straight by a promise that was an insult.\n\"If she would but let him have Silesia, he would, he said, stand by her\nagainst any power which should try to deprive her of her other dominions,\nas if he was not already bound to stand by her, or as if his new promise\ncould be of more value than the old one.\" That passage was written by\nMacaulay, but so far as the mere contemporary facts are concerned, it might\nhave been written by me.\n\nUpon the immediate logical and legal origin of the English interest there\ncan be no rational debate. There are some things so simple that one can\nalmost prove them with plans and diagrams, as in Euclid. One could make a\nkind of comic calendar of what would have happened to the English\ndiplomatist if he had been silenced every time by Prussian diplomacy.\nSuppose we arrange it in the form of a kind of diary.\n\nJuly 24. Germany invades Belgium.\n\nJuly 25. England declares war.\n\nJuly 26. Germany promises not to annex Belgium.\n\nJuly 27. England withdraws from the war.\n\nJuly 28. Germany annexes Belgium. England declares war.\n\nJuly 29. Germany promises not to annex France. England withdraws from the\nwar.\n\nJuly 30. Germany annexes France. England declares war.\n\nJuly 31. Germany promises not to annex England.\n\nAug. 1. England withdraws from the war. Germany invades England...\n\nHow long is anybody expected to go with that sort of game, or keep peace at\nthat illimitable price? How long must we pursue a road in which promises\nare all fetishes in front of us and all fragments behind us? No: upon the\ncold facts of the final negotiations, as told by any of the diplomatists in\nany of the documents, there is no doubt about the story. And no doubt about\nthe villain of the story.\n\nThese are the last facts--the facts which involved England. It is equally\neasy to state the first facts--the facts which involved Europe. The Prince\nwho practically ruled Austria was shot by certain persons whom the Austrian\nGovernment believed to be conspirators from Servia. The Austrian Government\npiled up arms and armies, but said not a word either to Servia their\nsuspect or Italy their ally. From the documents it would seem that Austria\nkept everybody in the dark, except Prussia. It is probably nearer the truth\nto say that Prussia kept everybody in the dark, including Austria. But all\nthat is what is called opinion, belief, conviction or common-sense, and we\nare not dealing with it here. The objective fact is that Austria told\nServia to permit Servian officers to be suspended by the authority of\nAustrian officers, and told Servia to submit to this within forty-eight\nhours. In other words, the sovereign of Servia was practically told to take\noff not only the laurels of two great campaigns but his own lawful and\nnational crown, and to do it in a time in which no respectable citizen is\nexpected to discharge an hotel bill. Servia asked for time, for\narbitration--in short, for peace. But Prussia had already begun to\nmobilise; and Prussia, presuming that Servia might thus be rescued,\ndeclared war.\n\nBetween these two ends of fact, the ultimatum to Servia, the ultimatum to\nBelgium, any one so inclined can of course talk as if everything were\nrelative. If any one ask why the Czar should rush to the support of Servia,\nit is as easy to ask why the Kaiser should rush to the support of Austria.\nIf any one say that the French would attack the Germans, it is sufficient\nto answer that the Germans did attack the French. There remain, however,\ntwo attitudes to consider, even perhaps two arguments to counter, which can\nbest be considered and countered under this general head of facts. First of\nall, there is a curious, cloudy sort of argument, much affected by the\nprofessional rhetoricians of Prussia, who are sent out to instruct and\ncorrect the minds of Americans or Scandinavians. It consists of going into\nconvulsions of incredulity and scorn at the mention of Russia's\nresponsibility for Servia or England's responsibility for Belgium; and\nsuggesting that, treaty or no treaty, frontier or no frontier, Russia would\nbe out to slay Teutons or England to steal colonies. Here, as elsewhere, I\nthink the professors dotted all over the Baltic plain fail in lucidity, and\nin the power of distinguishing ideas. Of course it is quite true that\nEngland has material interests to defend, and will probably use the\nopportunity to defend them: or, in other words, of course England, like\neverybody else, would be more comfortable if Prussia were less predominant.\nThe fact remains that we did not do what the Germans did. We did not\ninvade Holland to seize a naval and commercial advantage: and whether they\nsay that we wished to do it in our greed, or feared to do it in our\ncowardice, the fact remains that we did not do it. Unless this common-sense\nprinciple be kept in view, I cannot conceive how any quarrel can possibly\nbe judged. A contract may be made between two persons solely for material\nadvantage on each side: but the moral advantage is still generally supposed\nto lie with the person who keeps the contract. Surely it cannot be\ndishonest to be honest--even if honesty is the best policy. Imagine the\nmost complex maze of indirect motives; and still the man who keeps faith\nfor money cannot possibly be worse than the man who breaks faith for money.\nIt will be noted that this ultimate test applies in the same way to Servia\nas to Belgium and Britain. The Servians may not be a very peaceful people;\nbut, on the occasion under discussion, it was certainly they who wanted\npeace. You may choose to think the Serb a sort of born robber: but on this\noccasion it was certainly the Austrian who was trying to rob. Similarly,\nyou may call England perfidious as a sort of historical summary; and\ndeclare your private belief that Mr. Asquith was vowed from infancy to the\nruin of the German Empire, a Hannibal and hater of the eagles. But, when\nall is said, it is nonsense to call a man perfidious because he keeps his\npromise. It is absurd to complain of the sudden treachery of a business man\nin turning up punctually to his appointment: or the unfair shock given to a\ncreditor by the debtor paying his debts.\n\nLastly, there is an attitude not unknown in the crisis against which I\nshould particularly like to protest. I should address my protest especially\nto those lovers and pursuers of Peace who, very short-sightedly, have\noccasionally adopted it. I mean the attitude which is impatient of these\npreliminary details about who did this or that, and whether it was right or\nwrong. They are satisfied with saying that an enormous calamity, called\nWar, has been begun by some or all of us; and should be ended by some or\nall of us. To these people this preliminary chapter about the precise\nhappenings must appear not only dry (and it must of necessity be the driest\npart of the task) but essentially needless and barren. I wish to tell these\npeople that they are wrong; that they are wrong upon all principles of\nhuman justice and historic continuity: but that they are specially and\nsupremely wrong upon their own principles of arbitration and international\npeace.\n\nThese sincere and high-minded peace-lovers are always telling us that\ncitizens no longer settle their quarrels by private violence; and that\nnations should no longer settle theirs by public violence. They are always\ntelling us that we no longer fight duels; and need no longer wage wars. In\nshort, they perpetually base their peace proposals on the fact that an\nordinary citizen no longer avenges himself with an axe. But how is he\nprevented from revenging himself with an axe? If he hits his neighbour on\nthe head with the kitchen chopper, what do we do? Do we all join hands,\nlike children playing Mulberry Bush, and say \"We are all responsible for\nthis; but let us hope it will not spread. Let us hope for the happy day\nwhen he shall leave off chopping at the man's head; and when nobody shall\never chop anything for ever and ever.\" Do we say \"Let byegones be byegones;\nwhy go back to all the dull details with which the business began; who can\ntell with what sinister motives the man was standing there within reach of\nthe hatchet?\" We do not. We keep the peace in private life by asking for\nthe facts of provocation, and the proper object of punishment. We do go\ninto the dull details; we do enquire into the origins; we do emphatically\nenquire who it was that hit first. In short we do what I have done very\nbriefly in this place.\n\nGiven this, it is indeed true that behind these facts there are truths;\ntruths of a terrible, of a spiritual sort. In mere fact, the Germanic power\nhas been wrong about Servia, wrong about Russia, wrong about Belgium, wrong\nabout England, wrong about Italy. But there was a reason for its being\nwrong everywhere; and of that root reason, which has moved half the world\nagainst it, I shall speak later. For that is something too omnipresent to\nbe proved, too indisputable to be helped by detail. It is nothing less than\nthe locating, after more than a hundred years of recriminations and wrong\nexplanations, of the modern European evil: the finding of the fountain from\nwhich poison has flowed upon all the nations of the earth.\n\n\n\nI\n\nTHE WAR ON THE WORD\n\n\nIt will hardly be denied that there is one lingering doubt in many, who\nrecognise unavoidable self-defence in the instant parry of the English\nsword, and who have no great love for the sweeping sabre of Sadowa and\nSedan. That doubt is the doubt whether Russia, as compared with Prussia, is\nsufficiently decent and democratic to be the ally of liberal and civilised\npowers. I take first, therefore, this matter of civilisation.\n\nIt is vital in a discussion like this, that we should make sure we are\ngoing by meanings and not by mere words. It is not necessary in any\nargument to settle what a word means or ought to mean. But it is necessary\nin every argument to settle what we propose to mean by the word. So long as\nour opponent understands what is the _thing_ of which we are talking, it\ndoes not matter to the argument whether the word is or is not the one he\nwould have chosen. A soldier does not say \"We were ordered to go to\nMechlin; but I would rather go to Malines.\" He may discuss the etymology\nand arch\u00e6ology of the difference on the march; but the point is that he\nknows where to go. So long as we know what a given word is to mean in a\ngiven discussion, it does not even matter if it means something else in\nsome other and quite distinct discussion. We have a perfect right to say\nthat the width of a window comes to four feet; even if we instantly and\ncheerfully change the subject to the larger mammals; and say that an\nelephant has four feet. The identity of the words does not matter, because\nthere is no doubt at all about the meanings; because nobody is likely to\nthink of an elephant as four foot long, or of a window as having tusks and\na curly trunk.\n\nIt is essential to emphasise this consciousness of the _thing_ under\ndiscussion in connection with two or three words that are, as it were, the\nkey-words of this war. One of them is the word \"barbarian.\" The Prussians\napply it to the Russians: the Russians apply it to the Prussians. Both, I\nthink, really mean something that really exists, name or no name. Both mean\ndifferent things. And if we ask what these different things are, we shall\nunderstand why England and France prefer Russia; and consider Prussia the\nreally dangerous barbarian of the two. To begin with, it goes so much\ndeeper even than atrocities; of which, in the past at least, all the three\nEmpires of Central Europe have partaken pretty equally, as they partook of\nPoland. An English writer, seeking to avert the war by warnings against\nRussian influence, said that the flogged backs of Polish women stood\nbetween us and the Alliance. But not long before, the flogging of women by\nan Austrian general led to that officer being thrashed in the streets of\nLondon by Barclay and Perkins' draymen. And as for the third power, the\nPrussians, it seems clear that they have treated Belgian women in a style\ncompared with which flogging might be called an official formality. But,\nas I say, something much deeper than any such recrimination lies behind the\nuse of the word on either side. When the German Emperor complains of our\nallying ourselves with a barbaric and half-oriental power he is not (I\nassure you) shedding tears over the grave of Kosciusko. And when I say (as\nI do most heartily) that the German Emperor is a barbarian, I am not merely\nexpressing any prejudices I may have against the profanation of churches or\nof children. My countrymen and I mean a certain and intelligible thing when\nwe call the Prussians barbarians. It is quite different from the thing\nattributed to Russians; and it could not possibly be attributed to\nRussians. It is very important that the neutral world should understand\nwhat this thing is.\n\nIf the German calls the Russian barbarous he presumably means imperfectly\ncivilised. There is a certain path along which Western nations have\nproceeded in recent times; and it is tenable that Russia has not proceeded\nso far as the others: that she has less of the special modern system in\nscience, commerce, machinery, travel or political constitution. The Russ\nploughs with an old plough; he wears a wild beard; he adores relics; his\nlife is as rude and hard as that of a subject of Alfred the Great.\nTherefore he is, in the German sense, a barbarian. Poor fellows like Gorky\nand Dostoieffsky have to form their own reflections on the scenery, without\nthe assistance of large quotations from Schiller on garden seats; or\ninscriptions directing them to pause and thank the All-Father for the\nfinest view in Hesse-Pumpernickel. The Russians, having nothing but their\nfaith, their fields, their great courage, and their self-governing\ncommunes, are quite cut off from what is called (in the fashionable street\nin Frankfort) The True, The Beautiful and The Good. There is a real sense\nin which one can call such backwardness barbaric; by comparison with the\nKaiserstrasse; and in that sense it is true of Russia.\n\nNow we, the French and English, do not mean this when we call the Prussians\nbarbarians. If their cities soared higher than their flying ships, if\ntheir trains travelled faster than their bullets, we should still call them\nbarbarians. We should know exactly what we meant by it; and we should know\nthat it is true. For we do not mean anything that is an imperfect\ncivilisation by accident. We mean something that is the enemy of\ncivilisation by design. We mean something that is wilfully at war with the\nprinciples by which human society has been made possible hitherto. Of\ncourse it must be partly civilised even to destroy civilisation. Such ruin\ncould not be wrought by the savages that are merely undeveloped or inert.\nYou could not have even Huns without horses; or horses without\nhorsemanship. You could not have even Danish pirates without ships, or\nships without seamanship. This person, whom I may call the Positive\nBarbarian, must be rather more superficially up-to-date than what I may\ncall the Negative Barbarian. Alaric was an officer in the Roman legions:\nbut for all that he destroyed Rome. Nobody supposes that Eskimos could have\ndone it at all neatly. But (in our meaning) barbarism is not a matter of\nmethods but of aims. We say that these veneered vandals have the perfectly\nserious aim of destroying certain ideas which, as they think, the world has\noutgrown; without which, as we think, the world will die.\n\nIt is essential that this perilous peculiarity in the Pruss, or Positive\nBarbarian, should be seized. He has what he fancies is a new idea; and he\nis going to apply it to everybody. As a fact it is simply a false\ngeneralisation; but he is really trying to make it general. This does not\napply to the Negative Barbarian: it does not apply to the Russian or the\nServian, even if they are barbarians. If a Russian peasant does beat his\nwife, he does it because his fathers did it before him: he is likely to\nbeat less rather than more as the past fades away. He does not think, as\nthe Prussian would, that he has made a new discovery in physiology in\nfinding that a woman is weaker than a man. If a Servian does knife his\nrival without a word, he does it because other Servians have done it. He\nmay regard it even as piety, but certainly not as progress. He does not\nthink, as the Prussian does, that he founds a new school of horology by\nstarting before the word \"Go.\" He does not think he is in advance of the\nworld in militarism, merely because he is behind it in morals. No; the\ndanger of the Pruss is that he is prepared to fight for old errors as if\nthey were new truths. He has somehow heard of certain shallow\nsimplifications; and imagines that we have never heard of them. And, as I\nhave said, his limited but very sincere lunacy concentrates chiefly in a\ndesire to destroy two ideas, the twin root ideas of rational society. The\nfirst is the idea of record and promise: the second is the idea of\nreciprocity.\n\nIt is plain that the promise, or extension of responsibility through time,\nis what chiefly distinguishes us, I will not say from savages, but from\nbrutes and reptiles. This was noted by the shrewdness of the Old Testament,\nwhen it summed up the dark irresponsible enormity of Leviathan in the words\n\"Will he make a pact with thee?\" The promise, like the wheel, is unknown in\nNature: and is the first mark of man. Referring only to human civilisation\nit may be said with seriousness, that in the beginning was the Word. The\nvow is to the man what the song is to the bird, or the bark to the dog; his\nvoice, whereby he is known. Just as a man who cannot keep an appointment is\nnot fit even to fight a duel, so the man who cannot keep an appointment\nwith himself is not sane enough even for suicide. It is not easy to mention\nanything on which the enormous apparatus of human life can be said to\ndepend. But if it depends on anything, it is on this frail cord, flung from\nthe forgotten hills of yesterday to the invisible mountains of to-morrow.\nOn that solitary string hangs everything from Armageddon to an almanac,\nfrom a successful revolution to a return ticket. On that solitary string\nthe Barbarian is hacking heavily, with a sabre which is fortunately blunt.\n\nAny one can see this well enough, merely by reading the last negotiations\nbetween London and Berlin. The Prussians had made a new discovery in\ninternational politics: that it may often be convenient to make a promise;\nand yet curiously inconvenient to keep it. They were charmed, in their\nsimple way, with this scientific discovery, and desired to communicate it\nto the world. They therefore promised England a promise, on condition that\nshe broke a promise, and on the implied condition that the new promise\nmight be broken as easily as the old one. To the profound astonishment of\nPrussia, this reasonable offer was refused! I believe that the astonishment\nof Prussia was quite sincere. That is what I mean when I say that the\nBarbarian is trying to cut away that cord of honesty and clear record, on\nwhich hangs all that men have made.\n\nThe friends of the German cause have complained that Asiatics and Africans\nupon the very verge of savagery have been brought against them from India\nand Algiers. And, in ordinary circumstances, I should sympathise with such\na complaint made by a European people. But the circumstances are not\nordinary. Here, again, the quite unique barbarism of Prussia goes deeper\nthan what we call barbarities. About mere barbarities, it is true, the\nTurco and the Sikh would have a very good reply to the superior Teuton.\nThe general and just reason for not using non-European tribes against\nEuropeans is that given by Chatham against the use of the Red Indian: that\nsuch allies might do very diabolical things. But the poor Turco might not\nunreasonably ask, after a weekend in Belgium, what more diabolical things\nhe _could_ do than the highly cultured Germans were doing themselves.\nNevertheless, as I say, the justification of any extra-European aid goes\ndeeper than any such details. It rests upon the fact that even other\ncivilisations, even much lower civilisations, even remote and repulsive\ncivilisations, depend as much as our own on this primary principle on which\nthe super-morality of Potsdam declares open War. Even savages promise\nthings; and respect those who keep their promises. Even Orientals write\nthings down: and though they write them from right to left, they know the\nimportance of a scrap of paper. Many merchants will tell you that the word\nof the sinister and almost unhuman Chinaman is often as good as his bond:\nand it was amid palm trees and Syrian pavilions that the great utterance\nopened the tabernacle, to him that sweareth to his hurt and changeth not.\nThere is doubtless a dense labyrinth of duplicity in the East, and perhaps\nmore guile in the individual Asiatic than in the individual German. But we\nare not talking of the violations of human morality in various parts of the\nworld. We are talking about a new and inhuman morality, which denies\naltogether the day of obligation. The Prussians have been told by their\nliterary men that everything depends upon Mood: and by their politicians\nthat all arrangements dissolve before \"necessity.\" That is the importance\nof the German Chancellor's phrase. He did not allege some special excuse in\nthe case of Belgium, which might make it seem an exception that proved the\nrule. He distinctly argued, as on a principle applicable to other cases,\nthat victory was a necessity and honour was a scrap of paper. And it is\nevident that the half-educated Prussian imagination really cannot get any\nfurther than this. It cannot see that if everybody's action were entirely\nincalculable from hour to hour, it would not only be the end of all\npromises, but the end of all projects. In not being able to see that, the\nBerlin philosopher is really on a lower mental level than the Arab who\nrespects the salt, or the Brahmin who preserves the caste. And in this\nquarrel we have a right to come with scimitars as well as sabres, with bows\nas well as rifles, with assegai and tomahawk and boomerang, because there\nis in all these at least a seed of civilisation that these intellectual\nanarchists would kill. And if they should find us in our last stand girt\nwith such strange swords and following unfamiliar ensigns, and ask us for\nwhat we fight in so singular a company, we shall know what to reply: \"We\nfight for the trust and for the tryst; for fixed memories and the possible\nmeeting of men; for all that makes life anything but an uncontrollable\nnightmare. We fight for the long arm of honour and remembrance; for all\nthat can lift a man above the quicksands of his moods, and give him the\nmastery of time.\"\n\n\n\nII\n\nTHE REFUSAL OF RECIPROCITY\n\n\nIn the last summary I suggested that Barbarism, as we mean it, is not mere\nignorance or even mere cruelty. It has a more precise sense, and means\nmilitant hostility to certain necessary human ideas. I took the case of the\nvow or the contract, which Prussian intellectualism would destroy. I urged\nthat the Prussian is a spiritual Barbarian, because he is not bound by his\nown past, any more than a man in a dream. He avows that when he promised to\nrespect a frontier on Monday, he did not foresee what he calls \"the\nnecessity\" of not respecting it on Tuesday. In short, he is like a child,\nwho at the end of all reasonable explanations and reminders of admitted\narrangements, has no answer except \"But I _want_ to.\"\n\nThere is another idea in human arrangements so fundamental as to be\nforgotten; but now for the first time denied. It may be called the idea of\nreciprocity; or, in better English, of give and take. The Prussian appears\nto be quite intellectually incapable of this thought. He cannot, I think,\nconceive the idea that is the foundation of all comedy; that, in the eyes\nof the other man, he is only the other man. And if we carry this clue\nthrough the institutions of Prussianised Germany, we shall find how\ncuriously his mind has been limited in the matter. The German differs from\nother patriots in the inability to understand patriotism. Other European\npeoples pity the Poles or the Welsh for their violated borders; but Germans\npity only themselves. They might take forcible possession of the Severn or\nthe Danube, of the Thames or the Tiber, of the Garry or the Garonne--and\nthey would still be singing sadly about how fast and true stands the watch\non Rhine; and what a shame it would be if any one took their own little\nriver away from them. That is what I mean by not being reciprocal: and you\nwill find it in all that they do: as in all that is done by savages.\n\nHere, again, it is very necessary to avoid confusing this soul of the\nsavage with mere savagery in the sense of brutality or butchery; in which\nthe Greeks, the French and all the most civilised nations have indulged in\nhours of abnormal panic or revenge. Accusations of cruelty are generally\nmutual. But it is the point about the Prussian that with him nothing is\nmutual. The definition of the true savage does not concern itself even with\nhow much more he hurts strangers or captives than do the other tribes of\nmen. The definition of the true savage is that he laughs when he hurts you;\nand howls when you hurt him. This extraordinary inequality in the mind is\nin every act and word that comes from Berlin. For instance, no man of the\nworld believes all he sees in the newspapers; and no journalist believes a\nquarter of it. We should, therefore, be quite ready in the ordinary way to\ntake a great deal off the tales of German atrocities; to doubt this story\nor deny that. But there is one thing that we cannot doubt or deny: the seal\nand authority of the Emperor. In the Imperial proclamation the fact that\ncertain \"frightful\" things have been done is admitted; and justified on the\nground of their frightfulness. It was a military necessity to terrify the\npeaceful populations with something that was not civilised, something that\nwas hardly human. Very well. That is an intelligible policy: and in that\nsense an intelligible argument. An army endangered by foreigners may do the\nmost frightful things. But then we turn the next page of the Kaiser's\npublic diary, and we find him writing to the President of the United\nStates, to complain that the English are using Dum-dum bullets and\nviolating various regulations of the Hague Conference. I pass for the\npresent the question of whether there is a word of truth in these charges.\nI am content to gaze rapturously at the blinking eyes of the True, or\nPositive, Barbarian. I suppose he would be quite puzzled if we said that\nviolating the Hague Conference was \"a military necessity\" to us; or that\nthe rules of the Conference were only a scrap of paper. He would be quite\npained if we said that Dum-dum bullets, \"by their very frightfulness,\"\nwould be very useful to keep conquered Germans in order. Do what he will,\nhe cannot get outside the idea that he, because he is he and not you, is\nfree to break the law; and also to appeal to the law. It is said that the\nPrussian officers play at a game called Kriegsspiel, or the War Game. But\nin truth they could not play at any game; for the essence of every game is\nthat the rules are the same on both sides.\n\nBut taking every German institution in turn, the case is the same; and it\nis not a case of mere bloodshed or military bravado. The duel, for\nexample, can legitimately be called a barbaric thing; but the word is here\nused in another sense. There are duels in Germany; but so there are in\nFrance, Italy, Belgium, and Spain; indeed, there are duels wherever there\nare dentists, newspapers, Turkish baths, time-tables, and all the curses of\ncivilisation; except in England and a corner of America. You may happen to\nregard the duel as a historic relic of the more barbaric States on which\nthese modern States were built. It might equally well be maintained that\nthe duel is everywhere the sign of high civilisation; being the sign of its\nmore delicate sense of honour, its more vulnerable vanity, or its greater\ndread of social disrepute. But whichever of the two views you take, you\nmust concede that the essence of the duel is an armed equality. I should\nnot, therefore, apply the word barbaric, as I am using it, to the duels of\nGerman officers, or even to the broadsword combats that are conventional\namong the German students. I do not see why a young Prussian should not\nhave scars all over his face if he likes them; nay, they are often the\nredeeming points of interest on an otherwise somewhat unenlightening\ncountenance. The duel may be defended; the sham duel may be defended.\n\nWhat cannot be defended is something really peculiar to Prussia, of which\nwe hear numberless stories, some of them certainly true. It might be called\nthe one-sided duel. I mean the idea that there is some sort of dignity in\ndrawing the sword upon a man who has not got a sword; a waiter, or a shop\nassistant, or even a schoolboy. One of the officers of the Kaiser in the\naffair at Saberne was found industriously hacking at a cripple. In all\nthese matters I would avoid sentiment. We must not lose our tempers at the\nmere cruelty of the thing; but pursue the strict psychological distinction.\nOthers besides German soldiers have slain the defenceless, for loot or lust\nor private malice, like any other murderer. The point is that nowhere else\nbut in Prussian Germany is any theory of honour mixed up with such things;\nany more than with poisoning or picking pockets. No French, English,\nItalian or American gentleman would think he had in some way cleared his\nown character by sticking his sabre through some ridiculous greengrocer who\nhad nothing in his hand but a cucumber. It would seem as if the word which\nis translated from the German as \"honour\" must really mean something quite\ndifferent in German. It seems to mean something more like what we should\ncall \"prestige.\"\n\nThe fundamental fact, however, is the absence of the reciprocal idea. The\nPrussian is not sufficiently civilised for the duel. Even when he crosses\nswords with us his thoughts are not as our thoughts; when we both glorify\nwar, we are glorifying different things. Our medals are wrought like his,\nbut they do not mean the same thing; our regiments are cheered as his are,\nbut the thought in the heart is not the same; the Iron Cross is on the\nbosom of his king, but it is not the sign of our God. For we, alas, follow\nour God with many relapses and self-contradictions, but he follows his very\nconsistently. Through all the things that we have examined, the view of\nnational boundaries, the view of military methods, the view of personal\nhonour and self-defence, there runs in their case something of an atrocious\nsimplicity; something too simple for us to understand: the idea that glory\nconsists in holding the steel, and not in facing it.\n\nIf further examples were necessary, it would be easy to give hundreds of\nthem. Let us leave, for the moment, the relation between man and man in\nthe thing called the duel. Let us take the relation between man and woman,\nin that immortal duel which we call a marriage. Here again we shall find\nthat other Christian civilisations aim at some kind of equality; even if\nthe balance be irrational or dangerous. Thus, the two extremes of the\ntreatment of women might be represented by what are called the respectable\nclasses in America and in France. In America they choose the risk of\ncomradeship; in France the compensation of courtesy. In America it is\npractically possible for any young gentleman to take any young lady for\nwhat he calls (I deeply regret to say) a joy-ride; but at least the man\ngoes with the woman as much as the woman with the man. In France the young\nwoman is protected like a nun while she is unmarried; but when she is a\nmother she is really a holy woman; and when she is a grandmother she is a\nholy terror. By both extremes the woman gets something back out of life.\nThere is only one place where she gets little or nothing back; and that is\nthe north of Germany. France and America aim alike at equality; America by\nsimilarity; France by dissimilarity. But North Germany does definitely\naim at inequality. The woman stands up, with no more irritation than a\nbutler; the man sits down, with no more embarrassment than a guest. This is\nthe cool affirmation of inferiority, as in the case of the sabre and the\ntradesman. \"Thou goest with women; forget not thy whip,\" said Nietzsche. It\nwill be observed that he does not say \"poker\"; which might come more\nnaturally to the mind of a more common or Christian wife-beater. But then a\npoker is a part of domesticity; and might be used by the wife as well as\nthe husband. In fact, it often is. The sword and the whip are the weapons\nof a privileged caste.\n\nPass from the closest of all differences, that between husband and wife, to\nthe most distant of all differences, that of the remote and unrelated races\nwho have seldom seen each other's faces, and never been tinged with each\nother's blood. Here we still find the same unvarying Prussian principle.\nAny European might feel a genuine fear of the Yellow Peril; and many\nEnglishmen, Frenchmen, and Russians have felt and expressed it. Many might\nsay, and have said, that the Heathen Chinee is very heathen indeed; that if\nhe ever advances against us he will trample and torture and utterly\ndestroy, in a way that Eastern people do, but Western people do not. Nor do\nI doubt the German Emperor's sincerity when he sought to point out to us\nhow abnormal and abominable such a nightmare campaign would be, supposing\nthat it could ever come. But now comes the comic irony; which never fails\nto follow on the attempt of the Prussian to be philosophic. For the Kaiser,\nafter explaining to his troops how important it was to avoid Eastern\nBarbarism, instantly commanded them to become Eastern Barbarians. He told\nthem, in so many words, to be Huns: and leave nothing living or standing\nbehind them. In fact, he frankly offered a new army corps of aboriginal\nTartars to the Far East, within such time as it may take a bewildered\nHanoverian to turn into a Tartar. Any one who has the painful habit of\npersonal thought, will perceive here at once the non-reciprocal principle\nagain. Boiled down to its bones of logic, it means simply this: \"I am a\nGerman and you are a Chinaman. Therefore I, being a German, have a right\nto be a Chinaman. But you have no right to be a Chinaman; because you are\nonly a Chinaman.\" This is probably the highest point to which the German\nculture has risen.\n\nThe principle here neglected, which may be called Mutuality by those who\nmisunderstand and dislike the word Equality, does not offer so clear a\ndistinction between the Prussian and the other peoples as did the first\nPrussian principle of an infinite and destructive opportunism; or, in other\nwords, the principle of being unprincipled. Nor upon this second can one\ntake up so obvious a position touching the other civilisations or\nsemi-civilisations of the world. Some idea of oath and bond there is in the\nrudest tribes, in the darkest continents. But it might be maintained, of\nthe more delicate and imaginative element of reciprocity, that a cannibal\nin Borneo understands it almost as little as a professor in Berlin. A\nnarrow and one-sided seriousness is the fault of barbarians all over the\nworld. This may have been the meaning, for aught I know, of the one eye of\nthe Cyclops: that the Barbarian cannot see round things or look at them\nfrom two points of view; and thus becomes a blind beast and an eater of\nmen. Certainly there can be no better summary of the savage than this,\nwhich as we have seen, unfits him for the duel. He is the man who cannot\nlove--no, nor even hate--his neighbour as himself.\n\nBut this quality in Prussia does have one effect which has reference to the\nsame question of the lower civilisations. It disposes once and for all at\nleast of the civilising mission of Germany. Evidently the Germans are the\nlast people in the world to be trusted with the task. They are as\nshortsighted morally as physically. What is their sophism of \"necessity\"\nbut an inability to imagine to-morrow morning? What is their\nnon-reciprocity but an inability to imagine, not a god or devil,\nbut merely another man? Are these to judge mankind? Men of two tribes\nin Africa not only know that they are all men, but can understand\nthat they are all black men. In this they are quite seriously in\nadvance of the intellectual Prussian; who cannot be got to see\nthat we are all white men. The ordinary eye is unable to perceive\nin the North-East Teuton anything that marks him out especially\nfrom the more colourless classes of the rest of Aryan mankind. He is simply\na white man, with a tendency to the grey or the drab. Yet he will explain,\nin serious official documents, that the difference between him and us is a\ndifference between \"the master-race and the inferior-race.\" The collapse of\nGerman philosophy always occurs at the beginning rather than the end of an\nargument; and the difficulty here is that there is no way of testing which\nis a master-race except by asking which is your own race. If you cannot\nfind out (as is usually the case) you fall back on the absurd occupation of\nwriting history about pre-historic times. But I suggest quite seriously\nthat if the Germans can give their philosophy to the Hottentots, there is\nno reason why they should not give their sense of superiority to the\nHottentots. If they can see such fine shades between the Goth and the\nGaul, there is no reason why similar shades should not lift the savage\nabove other savages; why any Ojibway should not discover that he is one\ntint redder than the Dacotahs; or any nigger in the Cameroons say he is not\nso black as he is painted. For this principle of a quite unproved racial\nsupremacy is the last and worst of the refusals of reciprocity. The\nPrussian calls all men to admire the beauty of his large blue eyes. If they\ndo, it is because they have inferior eyes: if they don't, it is because\nthey have no eyes.\n\nWherever the most miserable remnant of our race, astray and dried up in\ndeserts, or buried forever under the fall of bad civilisations, has some\nfeeble memory that men are men, that bargains are bargains, that there are\ntwo sides to a question, or even that it takes two to make a quarrel--that\nremnant has the right to resist the New Culture, to the knife and club and\nthe splintered stone. For the Prussian begins all his culture by that act\nwhich is the destruction of all creative thought and constructive action.\nHe breaks that mirror in the mind, in which a man can see the face of his\nfriend or foe.\n\n\n\nIII\n\nTHE APPETITE OF TYRANNY\n\n\nThe German Emperor has reproached this country with allying itself with\n\"barbaric and semi-oriental power.\" We have already considered in what\nsense we use the word barbaric: it is in the sense of one who is hostile to\ncivilisation, not one who is insufficient in it. But when we pass from the\nidea of the barbaric to the idea of the oriental, the case is even more\ncurious. There is nothing particularly Tartar in Russian affairs, except\nthe fact that Russia expelled the Tartars. The Eastern invader occupied\nand crushed the country for many years; but that is equally true of Greece,\nof Spain and even of Austria. If Russia has suffered from the East she has\nsuffered in order to resist it: and it is rather hard that the very miracle\nof her escape should make a mystery about her origin. Jonah may or may not\nhave been three days inside a fish, but that does not make him a merman.\nAnd in all the other cases of European nations who escaped the monstrous\ncaptivity, we do admit the purity and continuity of the European type. We\nconsider the old Eastern rule as a wound, but not as a stain.\nCopper-coloured men out of Africa overruled for centuries the religion and\npatriotism of Spaniards. Yet I have never heard that Don Quixote was an\nAfrican fable on the lines of Uncle Remus. I have never heard that the\nheavy black in the pictures of Velasquez was due to a negro ancestry. In\nthe case of Spain, which is close to us, we can recognise the resurrection\nof a Christian and cultured nation after its age of bondage. But Russia is\nrather remote; and those to whom nations are but names in newspapers can\nreally fancy, like Mr. Baring's friend, that all Russian churches are\n\"mosques.\" Yet the land of Turgenev is not a wilderness of fakirs; and even\nthe fanatical Russian is as proud of being different from the Mongol, as\nthe fanatical Spaniard was proud of being different from the Moor.\n\nThe town of Reading, as it exists, offers few opportunities for piracy on\nthe high seas: yet it was the camp of the pirates in Alfred's day. I should\nthink it hard to call the people of Berkshire half-Danish, merely because\nthey drove out the Danes. In short, some temporary submergence under the\nsavage flood was the fate of many of the most civilised states of\nChristendom; and it is quite ridiculous to argue that Russia, which\nwrestled hardest, must have recovered least. Everywhere, doubtless, the\nEast spread a sort of enamel over the conquered countries, but everywhere\nthe enamel cracked. Actual history, in fact, is exactly opposite to the\ncheap proverb invented against the Muscovite. It is not true to say\n\"Scratch a Russian and you find a Tartar.\" In the darkest hour of the\nbarbaric dominion it was truer to say, \"Scratch a Tartar and you find a\nRussian.\" It was the civilisation that survived under all the barbarism.\nThis vital romance of Russia, this revolution against Asia, can be proved\nin pure fact: not only from the almost superhuman activity of Russia during\nthe struggle, but also (which is much rarer as human history goes) by her\nquite consistent conduct since. She is the only great nation which has\nreally expelled the Mongol from her country, and continued to protest\nagainst the presence of the Mongol in her continent. Knowing what he had\nbeen in Russia, she knew what he would be in Europe. In this she pursued a\nlogical line of thought which was, if anything, too unsympathetic with the\nenergies and religions of the East. Every other country, one may say, has\nbeen an ally of the Turk; that is, of the Mongol and the Moslem. The French\nplayed them as pieces against Austria; the English warmly supported them\nunder the Palmerston r\u00e9gime; even the young Italians sent troops to the\nCrimea; and of Prussia and her Austrian vassal it is nowadays needless to\nspeak. For good or evil, it is the fact of history that Russia is the only\nPower in Europe that has never supported the Crescent against the Cross.\n\nThat, doubtless, will appear an unimportant matter; but it may become\nimportant under certain peculiar conditions. Suppose, for the sake of\nargument, that there were a powerful prince in Europe who had gone\nostentatiously out of his way to pay reverence to the remains of the\nTartar, Mongol and Moslem, left as an outpost in Europe. Suppose there were\na Christian Emperor who could not even go to the tomb of the Crucified,\nwithout pausing to congratulate the last and living crucifier. If there\nwere an Emperor who gave guns and guides and maps and drill instructors to\ndefend the remains of the Mongol in Christendom, what should we say to him?\nI think at least we might ask him what he meant by his impudence, when he\ntalked about supporting a semi-oriental power. That we support a\nsemi-oriental power, we deny. That he has supported an entirely oriental\npower cannot be denied--no, not even by the man who did it.\n\nBut here is to be noted the essential difference between Russia and\nPrussia; especially by those who use the ordinary Liberal arguments against\nthe latter. Russia has a policy which she pursues, if you will, through\nevil and good; but at least so as to produce good as well as evil. Let it\nbe granted that the policy has made her oppressive to the Finns and the\nPoles--though the Russian Poles feel far less oppressed than do the\nPrussian Poles. But it is a mere historic fact, that if Russia has been a\ndespot to some small nations, she has been a deliverer to others. She did,\nso far as in her lay, emancipate the Servians or the Montenegrins. But\nwhom did Prussia ever emancipate--even by accident? It is indeed somewhat\nextraordinary that in the perpetual permutations of international politics\nthe Hohenzollerns have never gone astray into the path of enlightenment.\nThey have been in alliance with almost everybody off and on; with France,\nwith England, with Austria, with Russia. Can any one candidly say that they\nhave left on any one of these people the faintest impress of progress or\nliberation? Prussia was the enemy of the French Monarchy; but a worse\nenemy of the French Revolution. Prussia had been an enemy of the Czar; but\nshe was a worse enemy of the Duma. Prussia totally disregarded Austrian\nrights; but she is to-day quite ready to inflict Austrian wrongs. This is\nthe strong particular difference between the one empire and the other.\nRussia is pursuing certain intelligible and sincere ends, which to her at\nleast are ideals, and for which, therefore, she will make sacrifices and\nwill protect the weak. But the North German soldier is a sort of abstract\ntyrant, everywhere and always on the side of materialistic tyranny. This\nTeuton in uniform has been found in strange places; shooting farmers before\nSaratoga and flogging soldiers in Surrey, hanging niggers in Africa and\nraping girls in Wicklow; but never, by some mysterious fatality, lending a\nhand to the freeing of a single city or the independence of one solitary\nflag. Wherever scorn and prosperous oppression are, there is the Prussian;\nunconsciously consistent, instinctively restrictive, innocently evil;\n\"following darkness like a dream.\"\n\nSuppose we heard of a person (gifted with some longevity) who had helped\nAlva to persecute Dutch Protestants, then helped Cromwell to persecute\nIrish Catholics, and then helped Claverhouse to persecute Scotch Puritans,\nwe should find it rather easier to call him a persecutor than to call him a\nProtestant or a Catholic. Curiously enough this is actually the position in\nwhich the Prussian stands in Europe. No argument can alter the fact that in\nthree converging and conclusive cases he has been on the side of three\ndistinct rulers of different religions, who had nothing whatever in common\nexcept that they were ruling oppressively. In these three Governments,\ntaken separately, one can see something excusable or at least human. When\nthe Kaiser encouraged the Russian rulers to crush the Revolution, the\nRussian rulers undoubtedly believed they were wrestling with an inferno of\natheism and anarchy. A Socialist of the ordinary English kind cried out\nupon me when I spoke of Stolypin, and said he was chiefly known by the\nhalter called \"Stolypin's Necktie.\" As a fact, there were many other things\ninteresting about Stolypin besides his necktie: his policy of peasant\nproprietorship, his extraordinary personal courage, and certainly none more\ninteresting than that movement in his death agony, when he made the sign of\nthe cross towards the Czar, as the crown and captain of his Christianity.\nBut the Kaiser does not regard the Czar as the captain of Christianity. Far\nfrom it. What he supported in Stolypin was the necktie and nothing but the\nnecktie: the gallows and not the cross. The Russian ruler did believe that\nthe Orthodox Church was orthodox. The Austrian Archduke did really desire\nto make the Catholic Church catholic. He did really believe that he was\nbeing Pro-Catholic in being Pro-Austrian. But the Kaiser cannot be\nPro-Catholic, and therefore cannot have been really Pro-Austrian, he was\nsimply and solely Anti-Servian. Nay, even in the cruel and sterile strength\nof Turkey, any one with imagination can see something of the tragedy and\ntherefore of the tenderness of true belief. The worst that can be said of\nthe Moslems is, as the poet put it, they offered to man the choice of the\nKoran or the sword. The best that can be said for the German is that he\ndoes not care about the Koran, but is satisfied if he can have the sword.\nAnd for me, I confess, even the sins of these three other striving empires\ntake on, in comparison, something that is sorrowful and dignified: and I\nfeel they do not deserve that this little Lutheran lounger should patronise\nall that is evil in them, while ignoring all that is good. He is not\nCatholic, he is not Orthodox, he is not Mahomedan. He is merely an old\ngentleman who wishes to share the crime though he cannot share the creed.\nHe desires to be a persecutor by the pang without the palm. So strongly do\nall the instincts of the Prussian drive against liberty, that he would\nrather oppress other people's subjects than think of anybody going without\nthe benefits of oppression. He is a sort of disinterested despot. He is as\ndisinterested as the devil who is ready to do any one's dirty work.\n\nThis would seem obviously fantastic were it not supported by solid facts\nwhich cannot be explained otherwise. Indeed it would be inconceivable if we\nwere thinking of a whole people, consisting of free and varied individuals.\nBut in Prussia the governing class is really a governing class: and a very\nfew people are needed to think along these lines to make all the other\npeople act along them. And the paradox of Prussia is this: that while its\nprinces and nobles have no other aim on this earth but to destroy democracy\nwherever it shows itself, they have contrived to get themselves trusted,\nnot as wardens of the past but as forerunners of the future. Even they\ncannot believe that their theory is popular, but they do believe that it is\nprogressive. Here again we find the spiritual chasm between the two\nmonarchies in question. The Russian institutions are, in many cases,\nreally left in the rear of the Russian people, and many of the Russian\npeople know it. But the Prussian institutions are supposed to be in advance\nof the Prussian people, and most of the Prussian people believe it. It is\nthus much easier for the warlords to go everywhere and impose a hopeless\nslavery upon every one, for they have already imposed a sort of hopeful\nslavery on their own simple race.\n\nAnd when men shall speak to us of the hoary iniquities of Russia and of how\nantiquated is the Russian system, we shall answer \"Yes; that is the\nsuperiority of Russia.\" Their institutions are part of their history,\nwhether as relics or fossils. Their abuses have really been uses: that is\nto say, they have been used up. If they have old engines of terror or\ntorment, they may fall to pieces from mere rust, like an old coat of\narmour. But in the case of the Prussian tyranny, if it be tyranny at all,\nit is the whole point of its claim that it is not antiquated, but just\ngoing to begin, like the showman. Prussia has a whole thriving factory of\nthumbscrews, a whole humming workshop of wheels and racks, of the newest\nand neatest pattern, with which to win back Europe to the Reaction ...\n_infandum renovare dolorem_. And if we wish to test the truth of this, it\ncan be done by the same method which showed us that Russia, if her race or\nreligion could sometimes make her an invader and an oppressor, could also\nbe made an emancipator and a knight errant. In the same way, if the Russian\ninstitutions are old-fashioned, they honestly exhibit the good as well as\nthe bad that can be found in old-fashioned things. In their police system\nthey have an inequality which is against our ideas of law. But in their\ncommune system they have an equality that is older than law itself. Even\nwhen they flogged each other like barbarians, they called upon each other\nby their Christian names like children. At their worst they retained all\nthe best of a rude society. At their best, they are simply good, like good\nchildren or good nuns. But in Prussia all that is best in the civilised\nmachinery is put at the service of all that is worst in the barbaric mind.\nHere again the Prussian has no accidental merits, none of those lucky\nsurvivals, none of those late repentances, which make the patchwork glory\nof Russia. Here all is sharpened to a point and pointed to a purpose and\nthat purpose, if words and acts have any meaning at all, is the destruction\nof liberty throughout the world.\n\n\n\nIV\n\nTHE ESCAPE OF FOLLY\n\n\nIn considering the Prussian point of view we have been considering what\nseems to be mainly a mental limitation: a kind of knot in the brain.\nTowards the problem of Slav population, of English colonisation, of French\narmies and reinforcements, it shows the same strange philosophic sulks. So\nfar as I can follow it, it seems to amount to saying \"It is very wrong that\nyou should be superior to me, because I am superior to you.\" The spokesmen\nof this system seem to have a curious capacity for concentrating this\nentanglement or contradiction, sometimes into a single paragraph, or even a\nsingle sentence. I have already referred to the German Emperor's celebrated\nsuggestion that in order to avert the peril of Hunnishness we should all\nbecome Huns. A much stronger instance is his more recent order to his\ntroops touching the war in Northern France. As most people know, his words\nran \"It is my Royal and Imperial command that you concentrate your\nenergies, for the immediate present, upon one single purpose, and that is\nthat you address all your skill and all the valour of my soldiers to\nexterminate first the treacherous English and to walk over General French's\ncontemptible little Army.\" The rudeness of the remark an Englishman can\nafford to pass over; what I am interested in is the mentality; the train of\nthought that can manage to entangle itself even in so brief a space. If\nFrench's little Army is contemptible, it would seem clear that all the\nskill and valour of the German Army had better not be concentrated on it,\nbut on the larger and less contemptible allies. If all the skill and\nvalour of the German Army are concentrated on it, it is not being treated\nas contemptible. But the Prussian rhetorician had two incompatible\nsentiments in his mind; and he insisted on saying them both at once. He\nwanted to think of an English Army as a small thing; but he also wanted to\nthink of an English defeat as a big thing. He wanted to exult, at the same\nmoment, in the utter weakness of the British in their attack; and the\nsupreme skill and valour of the Germans in repelling such an attack.\nSomehow it must be made a common and obvious collapse for England; and yet\na daring and unexpected triumph for Germany. In trying to express these\ncontradictory conceptions simultaneously, he got rather mixed. Therefore he\nbade Germania fill all her vales and mountains with the dying agonies of\nthis almost invisible earwig; and let the impure blood of this cockroach\nredden the Rhine down to the sea.\n\nBut it would be unfair to base the criticism on the utterance of any\naccidental and hereditary prince: and it is quite equally clear in the case\nof the philosophers who have been held up to us, even in England, as the\nvery prophets of progress. And in nothing is it shown more sharply than in\nthe curious confused talk about Race and especially about the Teutonic\nRace. Professor Harnack and similar people are reproaching us, I\nunderstand, for having broken \"the bond of Teutonism\": a bond which the\nPrussians have strictly observed both in breach and observance. We note it\nin their open annexation of lands wholly inhabited by negroes, such as\nDenmark. We note it equally in their instant and joyful recognition of the\nflaxen hair and light blue eyes of the Turks. But it is still the abstract\nprinciple of Professor Harnack which interests me most; and in following it\nI have the same complexity of enquiry, but the same simplicity of result.\nComparing the Professor's concern about \"Teutonism\" with his unconcern\nabout Belgium, I can only reach the following result: \"A man need not keep\na promise he has made. But a man must keep a promise he has not made.\"\nThere certainly was a treaty binding Britain to Belgium; if it was only a\nscrap of paper. If there was any treaty binding Britain to Teutonism it is,\nto say the least of it, a lost scrap of paper: almost what one might call a\nscrap of waste-paper. Here again the pendants under consideration exhibit\nthe illogical perversity that makes the brain reel. There is obligation and\nthere is no obligation: sometimes it appears that Germany and England must\nkeep faith with each other; sometimes that Germany need not keep faith with\nanybody and anything; sometimes that we alone among European peoples are\nalmost entitled to be Germans; sometimes that beside us Russians and\nFrenchmen almost rise to a Germanic loveliness of character. But through\nall there is, hazy but not hypocritical, this sense of some common\nTeutonism.\n\nProfessor Haeckel, another of the witnesses raised up against us, attained\nto some celebrity at one time through proving the remarkable resemblance\nbetween two different things by printing duplicate pictures of the same\nthing. Professor Haeckel's contribution to biology, in this case, was\nexactly like Professor Harnack's contribution to ethnology. Professor\nHarnack knows what a German is like. When he wants to imagine what an\nEnglishman is like, he simply photographs the same German over again. In\nboth cases there is probably sincerity as well as simplicity. Haeckel was\nso certain that the species illustrated in embryo really are closely\nrelated and linked up, that it seemed to him a small thing to simplify it\nby mere repetition. Harnack is so certain that the German and Englishman\nare almost alike, that he really risks the generalisation that they are\nexactly alike. He photographs, so to speak, the same fair and foolish face\ntwice over; and calls it a remarkable resemblance between cousins. Thus he\ncan prove the existence of Teutonism just about as conclusively as Haeckel\nhas proved the more tenable proposition of the non-existence of God. Now\nthe German and the Englishman are not in the least alike--except in the\nsense that neither of them are negroes. They are, in everything good and\nevil, more unlike than any other two men we can take at random from the\ngreat European family. They are opposite from the roots of their history,\nnay, of their geography. It is an understatement to call Britain insular.\nBritain is not only an island, but an island slashed by the sea till it\nnearly splits into three islands; and even the Midlands can almost smell\nthe salt. Germany is a powerful, beautiful and fertile inland country,\nwhich can only find the sea by one or two twisted and narrow paths, as\npeople find a subterranean lake. Thus the British Navy is really national\nbecause it is natural; it has co-hered out of hundreds of accidental\nadventures of ships and shipmen before Chaucer's time and after it. But the\nGerman Navy is an artificial thing; as artificial as a constructed Alp\nwould be in England. William II has simply copied the British Navy as\nFrederick II copied the French Army: and this Japanese or anti-like\nassiduity in imitation is one of the hundred qualities which the Germans\nhave and the English markedly have not. There are other German\nsuperiorities which are very much superior. The one or two really jolly\nthings that the Germans have got are precisely the things which the English\nhaven't got: notably a real habit of popular music and of the ancient songs\nof the people, not merely spreading from the towns or caught from the\nprofessionals. In this the Germans rather resemble the Welsh: though heaven\nknows what becomes of Teutonism if they do. But the difference between the\nGermans and the English goes deeper than all these signs of it; they differ\nmore than any other two Europeans in the normal posture of the mind. Above\nall, they differ in what is the most English of all English traits; that\nshame which the French may be right in calling \"the bad shame\"; for it is\ncertainly mixed up with pride and suspicion, the upshot of which we call\nshyness. Even an Englishman's rudeness is often rooted in his being\nembarrassed. But a German's rudeness is rooted in his never being\nembarrassed. He eats and makes love noisily. He never feels a speech or a\nsong or a sermon or a large meal to be what the English call \"out of place\"\nin particular circumstances. When Germans are patriotic and religious they\nhave no reactions against patriotism and religion as have the English and\nthe French. Nay, the mistake of Germany in the modern disaster largely\narose from the facts that she thought England was simple when England is\nvery subtle. She thought that because our politics have become largely\nfinancial that they had become wholly financial; that because our\naristocrats had become pretty cynical that they had become entirely\ncorrupt. They could not seize the subtlety by which a rather used-up\nEnglish gentleman might sell a coronet when he would not sell a fortress;\nmight lower the public standards and yet refuse to lower the flag. In\nshort, the Germans are quite sure that they understand us entirely, because\nthey do not understand us at all. Possibly if they began to understand us\nthey might hate us even more: but I would rather be hated for some small\nbut real reason than pursued with love on account of all kinds of qualities\nwhich I do not possess and which I do not desire. And when the Germans get\ntheir first genuine glimpse of what modern England is like they will\ndiscover that England has a very broken, belated and inadequate sense of\nhaving an obligation to Europe, but no sort of sense whatever of having any\nobligation to Teutonism.\n\nThis is the last and strongest of the Prussian qualities we have here\nconsidered. There is in stupidity of this sort a strange slippery\nstrength: because it can be not only outside rules but outside reason. The\nman who really cannot see that he is contradicting himself has a great\nadvantage in controversy; though the advantage breaks down when he tries to\nreduce it to simple addition, to chess, or to the game called war. It is\nthe same about the stupidity of the one-sided kinship. The drunkard who is\nquite certain that a total stranger is his long-lost brother, has a greater\nadvantage until it comes to matters of detail. \"We must have chaos within\"\nsaid Nietzsche, \"that we may give birth to a dancing star.\"\n\nIn these slight notes I have suggested the principal strong points of the\nPrussian character. A failure in honour which almost amounts to a failure\nin memory: an egomania that is honestly blind to the fact that the other\nparty is an ego; and, above all, an actual itch for tyranny and\ninterference, the devil which everywhere torments the idle and the proud.\nTo these must be added a certain mental shapelessness which can expand or\ncontract without reference to reason or record; a potential infinity of\nexcuses. If the English had been on the German side, the German professors\nwould have noted what irresistible energies had evolved the Teutons. As the\nEnglish are on the other side, the German professors will say that these\nTeutons were not sufficiently evolved. Or they will say that they were\njust sufficiently evolved to show that they were not Teutons. Probably they\nwill say both. But the truth is that all that they call evolution should\nrather be called evasion. They tell us they are opening windows of\nenlightenment and doors of progress. The truth is that they are breaking up\nthe whole house of the human intellect, that they may abscond in any\ndirection. There is an ominous and almost monstrous parallel between the\nposition of their over-rated philosophers and of their comparatively\nunder-rated soldiers. For what their professors call roads of progress are\nreally routes of escape.\n\n\n\nLETTERS TO AN OLD GARIBALDIAN\n\n\nItaly, twice hast thou spoken; and time is athirst\nfor the third.\n                             --SWINBURNE.\n\n\nMy Dear ------\n\nIt is a long time since we met; and I fear these letters may never reach\nyou. But in these violent times I remember with a curious vividness how you\nbrandished a paintbrush about your easel when I was a boy; and how it\nthrilled me to think that you had so brandished a bayonet against the\nTeutons--I hope with the same precision and happy results. Round about\nthat period, the very pigments seemed to have some sort of picturesque\nconnection with your national story. There seemed to be something gorgeous\nand terrible about Venetian Red; and something quite catastrophic about\nBurnt Sienna. But somehow or other, when I saw in the street yesterday the\ncolours on your flag, it reminded me of the colours on your palette.\n\nYou need not fear that I shall try to entangle you or your countrymen in\nthe matters which it is for Italians alone to decide. You know the perils\nof either course much better than I do. Italy, most assuredly, has no need\nto prove her courage. She has risked everything in standing out that she\ncould risk by coming in. The proclamations and press of Germany make it\nplain that the Germans have risen to a height of sensibility hardly to be\ndistinguished from madness. Supposing the nightmare of a Prussian victory,\nthey will revenge themselves on things more remote than the Triple\nAlliance. There was a promise of peace between them and Belgium; there was\nnone between them and England. The promise to Belgium they broke. The\npromise of England they invented. It is called the Treaty of Teutonism. No\none ever heard of it in this country; but it seems well known in academic\ncircles in Germany. It seems to be something, connected with the colour of\none's hair. But I repeat that I am not concerned to interfere with your\ndecision, save in so far as I may provide some materials for it by\ndescribing our own.\n\nFor I think the first, perhaps the only, fruitful work an Englishman can do\nnow for the formation of foreign opinion is to talk about what he really\nunderstands, the condition of British opinion. It is as simple as it is\nsolid. For the first time, perhaps, what we call the United Kingdom\nentirely deserves its name. There has been nothing like such unanimity\nwithin an Englishman's recollection. The Irish and even the Welsh were\nlargely pro-Boers, so were some of the most English of the English. No one\ncould have been more English than Fox, yet he denounced the war with\nNapoleon. No one could be more English than Cobden, but he denounced the\nwar in the Crimea. It is really extraordinary to find a united England.\nIndeed, until lately, it was extraordinary to find a united Englishman.\nThose of us who, like the present writer, repudiated the South African war\nfrom its beginnings, had yet a divided heart in the matter, and felt\ncertain aspects of it as glorious as well as infamous. The first fact I can\noffer you is the unquestionable fact that all these doubts and divisions\nhave ceased. Nor have they ceased by any compromise; but by a universal\nflash of faith--or, if you will, of suspicion. Nor were our internal\nconflicts lightly abandoned; nor our reconciliations an easy matter. I am,\nas you are, a democrat and a citizen of Europe; and my friends and I had\ngrown to loathe the plutocracy and privilege which sat in the high places\nof our country with a loathing which we thought no love could cast out. Of\nthese rich men I will not speak here; with your permission, I will not\nthink of them. War is a terrible business in any case; and to some\nintellectual temperaments this is the most terrible part of it. That war\ntakes the young; that war sunders the lovers; that all over Europe brides\nand bridegrooms are parting at the church door: all that is only a\ncommonplace to commonplace people. To give up one's love for one's country\nis very great. But to give up one's hate for one's country, this may also\nhave in it something of pride and something of purification.\n\nWhat is it that has made the British peoples thus defer not only their\nartificial parade of party politics but their real social and moral\ncomplaints and demands? What is it that has united all of us against the\nPrussian, as against a mad dog? It is the presence of a certain spirit, as\nunmistakable as a pungent smell, which we feel is capable of withering all\nthe good things in this world. The burglary of Belgium, the bribe to\nbetray France, these are not excuses; they are facts. But they are only\nthe facts by which we came to know of the presence of the spirit. They do\nnot suffice to define the whole spirit itself. A good rough summary is to\nsay that it is the spirit of barbarism; but indeed it is something worse.\nIt is the spirit of second-rate civilisation; and the distinction involves\nthe most important differences. Granted that it could exist, pure barbarism\ncould not last long; as pure babyhood cannot last long. Of his own nature\nthe baby is interested in the ticking of a watch; and the time will come\nwhen you will have to tell him, if you only tell him the wrong time. And\nthat is exactly what the second-rate civilisation does.\n\nBut the vital point is here. The abstract barbarian would copy. The cockney\nand incomplete civilisation always sets itself up to be copied. And in the\ncase here considered, the German thinks that it is not only his business to\nspread education, but to spread compulsory education. \"Science combined\nwith organisation,\" says Professor Ostwald of Berlin University, \"makes us\nterrible to our opponents and ensures a German future for Europe.\" That is,\nas shortly as it can be put, what we are fighting about. We are fighting to\nprevent a German future for Europe. We think it would be narrower, nastier,\nless sane, less capable of liberty and of laughter, than any of the worst\nparts of the European past. And when I cast about for a form in which to\nexplain shortly why we think so, I thought of you. For this is a matter so\nlarge that I know not how to express it except in terms of artists like\nyou, in the service of beauty and the faith in freedom. Prussia, at least\ncannot help me; Lord Palmerston, I believe, called it a country of damned\nprofessors. Lord Palmerston, I fear, used the word \"damned\" more or less\nflippantly. I use it reverently.\n\nRome, at her very weakest, has always been a river that wanders and widens\nand that waters many fields. Berlin, at its strongest, will never be\nanything but a whirlpool, which seeks its own centre, and is sucked down.\nIt would only narrow all the rest of Europe, as it has already narrowed all\nthe rest of Germany. There is a spirit of diseased egoism, which at last\nmakes all things spin upon one pin-point in the brain. It is a spirit\nexpressed more often in the slangs than in the tongues of men. The English\ncall it a fad. I do not know what the Italians call it; the Prussians call\nit philosophy.\n\nHere is the sort of instance that made me think of you. What would you feel\nfirst, let us say, if I mentioned Michael Angelo? For the first moment,\nperhaps, boredom: such as I feel when Americans ask me about\nStratford-on-Avon. But, supposing that just fear quieted, you would feel\nwhat I and every one else can feel. It might be the sense of the majestic\nhands of Man upon the locks of the last doors of life; large and terrible\nhands, like those of that youth who poises the stone above Florence, and\nlooks out upon the circle of the hills. It might be that huge heave of\nflank and chest and throat in \"The Slave,\" which is like an earthquake\nlifting a whole landscape; it might be that tremendous Madonna, whose\ncharity is more strong than death. Anyhow, your thoughts would be something\nworthy of the man's terrible paganism and his more terrible Christianity.\nWho but God could have graven Michael Angelo; who came so near to graving\nthe Mother of God?\n\nGerman culture deals with the matter as follows:--\"Michelangelo Buonarotti\n(1475-1564).--(=Bernhard) ancestor of the family, lived in Florence about\n1210. He had two sons, Berlinghieri and Buonarrota. By this name recurring\nfrequently in later generations, the family came to be called. It is a\nGerman name, compounded of Bona (=Bohn) and Hrodo, Roto (=Rohde, Rothe)\nBona and Rotto are cited as Lombard names. Buonarotti is perhaps the old\nLombard Beonrad, corresponding to the word Bonroth. Corresponding names are\nMackrodt, Osterroth, Leonard.\" And so on, and so on, and so on. \"In his\nface he has always been well-coloured...the eyes might be called small\nrather than large, of the colour of horn, but variable with 'flecks' of\nyellow and blue. Hair and beard are black. These particulars are confirmed\nby the portraits. First and foremost take the portrait of Bugiardini in\nMuseo Buonarotti. Here comes to view the 'flecked' appearance of the iris,\nespecially in the right eye. The left may be described as almost wholly\nblue.\" And so on, and so on, and so on. \"In the Museo Civico at Pavia, is a\nfresco likeness by an unknown hand, in which this fresh red is distinctly\nrecognisable on the face. Taking all these bodily characteristics into\nconsideration, it must be said from an anthropological point of view that\nthough originally of German family he was a hybrid between the North and\nWest brunette race.\"\n\nWould you take the trouble to prove that Michael Angelo was an Italian that\nthis man takes to prove that he was a German? Of course not. The only\nimpression this man (who is a recognised Prussian historian) produces on\nyour mind or mine is that he does not care about Michael Angelo. For you,\nbeing an Italian, are therefore something more than an Italian; and I being\nan Englishman, something more than an Englishman. But this poor fellow\nreally cannot be anything more than a Prussian. He digs and digs to find\ndead Prussians, in the catacombs of Rome or under the ruins of Troy. If he\ncan find one blue eye lying about somewhere, he is satisfied. He has no\nphilosophy. He has a hobby, which is collecting Germans. It would probably\nbe vain for you and me to point out that we could prove anything by the\nsort of ingenuity which finds the German \"rothe\" in Buonarotti. We could\nhave great fun depriving Germany of all her geniuses in that style. We\ncould say that Moltke must have been an Italian, from the old Latin root\n_mol_--indicating the sweetness of that general's disposition. We might say\nBismarck was a Frenchman, since his name begins with the popular theatrical\ncry of \"Bis!\" We might say Goethe was an Englishman, because his name\nbegins with the popular sporting cry \"Go!\" But the ultimate difference\nbetween us and the Prussian professor is simply that we are not mad.\n\nThe father of Frederick the Great, the founder of the more modern\nHohenzollerns, was mad. His madness consisted of stealing giants; like an\nunscrupulous travelling showman. Any man much over six foot high, whether\nhe were called the Russian Giant or the Irish Giant or the Chinese Giant or\nthe Hottentot Giant, was in danger of being kidnapped and imprisoned in a\nPrussian uniform. It is the same mean sort of madness that is working in\nPrussian professors such as the one I have quoted. They can get no further\nthan the notion of stealing giants. I will not bore you now with all the\nother giants they have tried to steal; it is enough to say that St. Paul,\nLeonardo da Vinci, and Shakespeare himself are among the monstrosities\nexhibited at Frederick-William fair--on grounds as good as those quoted\nabove. But I have put this particular case before you, as an artist rather\nthan an Italian, to show what I mean when I object to a \"German future for\nEurope.\" I object to something which believes very much in itself, and in\nwhich I do not in the least believe. I object to something which is\nconceited and small-minded; but which also has that kind of pertinacity\nwhich always belongs to lunatics. It wants to be able to congratulate\nitself on Michael Angelo; never to congratulate the world. It is the spirit\nthat can be seen in those who go bald trying to trace a genealogy; or go\nbankrupt trying to make out a claim to some remote estate. The Prussian has\nthe inconsistency of the _parvenu_; he will labour to prove that he is\nrelated to some gentleman of the Renaissance, even while he boasts of being\nable to \"buy him up.\" If the Italians were really great, why--they were\nreally Germans; and if they weren't really Germans, well then, they weren't\nreally great. It is an occupation for an old maid.\n\nThree or four hundred years ago, in the sad silence that had followed the\ncomparative failure of the noble effort of the Middle Ages, there came upon\nall Europe a storm out of the south. Its tumult is of many tongues; one can\nhear in it the laughter of Rabelais, or, for that matter, the lyrics of\nShakespeare; but the dark heart of the storm was indeed more austral and\nvolcanic; a noise of thunderous wings and the name of Michael the\nArchangel. And when it had shocked and purified the world and passed, a\nPrussian professor found a feather fallen to earth; and proved (in several\nvolumes) that it could only have come from a Prussian Eagle. He had seen\none--in a cage.\n\n         Yours ------,\n              G.K. CHESTERTON.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMy Dear ------\n\nThe facts before all Europeans to-day are so fundamental that I still find\nit easier to talk about them to you as to an old friend, rather than put it\nin the shape of a pamphlet. In my last letter I pointed out two facts\nwhich are pivots. The first is that, to any really cultured person, Prussia\nis second-rate. The second is that to almost any Prussian, Prussia is\nreally first-rate; and is prepared, quite literally, to police the rest of\nthe world.\n\nFor the first matter, the comparative inferiority of German culture cannot\nbe doubted by people like you. One of the German papers pathetically said\nthat, though the mangling of Malines and Rheims was very sad, it was a\ncomfort to think that yet nobler works of art would spring up wherever the\nGerman culture had passed in triumph. From the point of view of humour, it\nis really rather sad that they never will. The German Emperor's idea of a\nGothic cathedral is as provocative to the fancy as Mrs. Todgers' idea of a\nwooden leg. But I think it perfectly probable that they really intended to\nset up such beautiful buildings as they could. Having been blasphemous\nenough to ruin such things, they might well be blasphemous enough to\nreplace them. Even if the Prussian attempt on Paris had not wholly\ncollapsed as it has, I doubt whether the Prussians would have destroyed\neverything. I doubt whether they would even have destroyed the Venus de\nMilo. More probably they would have put a pair of arms on it, designed by\nsome rising German artist--the Emperor or somebody. And the two arms thus\nadded would look at once like the arms of a woman at a wash-tub. The\ndestroyers of the tower of Rheims are quite capable of destroying the Tower\nof Giotto. But they are equally capable of the greater crime of completing\nit. And if they put on a spire, what a spire it would be! What an\nextinguisher for that clear and almost transparent Christian candle! Have\nyou read some of the German explanations of Hamlet? Did I tell you that\nLeonardo's hair must have been German hair, because so many of his\ncontemporaries said it was beautiful? This is what I call being\nsecond-rate. All the German excitement about the colonies of England is\nonly a half understanding of what was once heroic and is now largely\ncaddish. The German Emperor's naval vision is a bad copy of Nelson, as\ncertainly as Frederick the Great's verses were a bad copy of Voltaire.\n\nBut the second point was even more important; that weak as the thing is\nmentally it is strong materially; and will impose itself materially if we\npermit it. The Prussians have failed in everything else; but they have not\nfailed in getting their subject thousands to do as they are told. They\ncannot put up black and white towers in Florence; but they can really put\nup black and white posts in Alsace. They have failed in diplomacy. I\nsuppose it might be called a failure in diplomacy to come into the fight\nwith two enemies extra and one ally the less. If the Germans, instead of\nsending spies to study the Belgian soil, had sent spies to consider the\nBelgian soul, they would have been saved hard work for a week or two. They\nhave failed in controversy. I suppose it might be called a failure in\ncontroversy to say that England may be keeping her word for some wicked\npurpose; while Germany may be breaking her word for some noble purpose. And\nthat is practically all that the Germans can manage to say. They say that\nwe are an insatiable, unscrupulous, piratical power; and this wild spirit\nwhirled us into the mad course of respecting a treaty we had signed. They\ncan find in us no treason except that we keep our treaties: failing to do\nthis I call failing in controversy. They have failed in popular persuasion.\nThey have had a very good opportunity. The British Empire does contain many\npeople who have been badly treated in various ways: the Irish, the Boers;\nnay, the Americans themselves, whose national existence began with being\nbadly treated. With these the Prussians have done comparatively little; and\nwith Europeans of your sort nothing. They have never once really\nsympathised with the feeling of a Switzer for Switzerland; the feeling of a\nNorwegian for Norway; the feeling of a Tuscan for Tuscany. Even when\nnations are neutral, Prussia can hardly bear them to be patriotic. Even\nwhen they are courting every one else they can praise no one but\nthemselves. They fail in diplomacy, they fail in debate, they fail even in\ndemagogy. They have stupid plots, stupid explanations, and even stupid\napologies. But there is one thing they really do not fail in. They do not\nfail in finding people stupid enough to carry them out.\n\nNow, it is this question I would ask you to consider; you, as a good middle\ntype of the Latins, a Liberal but a Catholic, an artist but a soldier. The\ndanger to the whole civilisation of which Rome was the fountain lies in\nthis. That the more this strange Pruss people fail in all the other things,\nthe more they will fall back on this mere fact of a brutal obedience. They\nwill give orders; they have nothing else to give. I say that this is the\nquestion for you; I do not say, I do not dream of saying, that the answer\nis for me. It is for you to weigh the chance that their very failures in\nthe arts of peace will drive them back upon the arts of war. They could\nnot, and they did not, dupe your people in diplomacy. They did the most\nundiplomatic thing that can be done; they concealed a breach of partnership\nwithout even concealing the concealment. They instigated the intrigue in\nAustria in such a way that Italy could honestly claim all the freedom of\npast ignorance, combined with all the disillusionment of present knowledge.\nThey so ran the Triple Alliance that they had to admit your grievance, at\nthe very moment when they claimed your aid. The English are stupider and\nless sensitive than you are; but even the English found the German\nChancellor's diplomacy not insinuating but simply insulting; I swear I\nwould be a better diplomatist myself. In the same way, there is no danger\nof people like you being corrupted in controversy. There is no fear that\nthe professors who pullulate all over the Baltic Plain will overcome the\nLatins in logic. Some of them even claim to be super-logical; and say they\nare too big for syllogisms; generally having found even one syllogism too\nbig for them. If they complain either of your abstention from their cause\nor your adhesion to any other, you have an unanswerable answer. You will\nsay, as you did say, that you did not break the Triple Alliance, even for\nthe sake of peace. It was they who broke it for the sake of war. You,\nobviously, had as much right to be consulted about Servia as Austria had;\nand on the mere chess-board of argument it is mate in one move. Nor are\nthey in the least fitted to make an appeal to the popular sentiment of your\npeople. The English, I dare say, and the French, have talked an amazing\namount of nonsense about you; but they understand a little better. They do\nnot write exactly like this, which is from the most public and accepted\nPrussian political philosopher (Chamberlain). \"Who can live in Italy\nto-day and mix with its amiable and highly gifted inhabitants without\nfeeling with pain that here a great nation is lost, irredeemably lost,\nbecause it lacks the inner driving power,\" etc., which has brought Von\nKluck so triumphantly through Paris. Even a half-educated Englishman, who\nhas heard of no Italian poet except Dante, knows that he was something more\nthan amiable. Even a positively illiterate Frenchman, who has heard of no\nItalian warrior except Napoleon, knows that it was not in \"inner driving\nforce\" that the artilleryman in question was deficient. \"Who can live in\nItaly to-day?\" Evidently the Prussian philosopher can't. His impressions\nare taken from Italian operas; not from Italian streets; certainly not from\nItalian fields. As a matter of fact such images of Italy as burn in the\nmemories of most open-minded Northerners who have been there, are of\nexactly the other kind. I for one should be inclined to say, \"Who can live\nin Italy to-day without feeling that a woman feeding children, or a man\nchopping wood, may almost touch him with fear with the fulness of their\nhumanity: so that he can almost smell blood, as one smells burning?\"\nItalians often look lazy; that is, they look as if they would not move; but\nnot as if they could not move, as many Germans do. But even though this\nformula fitted the Italians, it seems scarcely calculated to please them.\nFor the Prussians, then, with the failure of their diplomacy, the failure\nof their philosophy, we may also place the failure of their appeals to a\nforeign people. The Prussian writer may continue his attempts to soothe\nand charm you by telling you that you are irredeemably lost, and that all\ngreat Italians must have been something else. But the method seems to me\nill adapted to popular propaganda; and I cannot but say that on this third\npoint of persuasion, the German attempt is not striking.\n\nNow all this is important for this reason. If you consider it carefully\nyou will see why Europe must, at whatever cost, break Germany in battle:\nand put an end to her military and material power to _do_ things. If we all\nhave to fight for it, if we all have to die for it, it must be done. If we\nfind allies in the dwarfs of Greenland or the giants of Patagonia, it must\nbe done. And the reason is that unless it is literally and materially done,\nother things will be literally and materially done; and horrify the\nheavens. They will be silly things; they will be benighted and limited and\nlaughable things; but they will be accomplished things. Nothing could be\nmore ridiculous, if that is all, than the moral position of the Prussian in\nPoland; where a magnificent officer, making a vast parade of \"ruling,\"\ntries to cheat poor peasants out of their fields (and gets cheated) and\nthen takes refuge in beating little boys for saying their prayers in their\nnative tongue. All who remember anything of dignity, of irony, in short of\nRome and reason, can see why an officer need not, should not, had better\nnot, and generally does not, beat little boys. But an officer _can_ beat\nlittle boys: and a Prussian officer will go on doing it until you take away\nthe stick. Nothing could be more comic, if that is all, than the position\nof Prussians in Alsace: which they declare to be purely German and admit to\nbe furiously French; so that they have to terrorise it by sabring anybody,\nincluding cripples. Again, any of us can see why an officer need not,\nshould not, had better not, and generally does not, sabre a cripple. But an\nofficer _can_ sabre a cripple; and a Prussian officer will go on doing it\nuntil you take away the sabre. It is this insane and rigid realism that\nmakes their case peculiar: like that of a Chinaman copying something, or a\nhalf-witted servant taking a message. If they had the power to put black\nand white posts round the grave of Virgil, or dig up Dante to see if he had\nyellow hair, the mere _doing_ of it which for some of us would be the most\nunlikely, would for them be the least unlikely thing. They do not hear the\nlaughter of the ages. If they had the power to treat the English or Italian\nPremier quite literally as a traitor, and shoot him against a wall, they\nare quite capable of turning such hysterical rhetoric into reality: and\nscattering his brains before they had collected their own. They do not feel\natmospheres. They are all a little deaf; as they are all a little\nshort-sighted. They are annoyed when their enemies, after such experiences\nas those of Belgium, accuse them of breaking their promises. And in one\nsense they are right; for there are some sorts of promises they probably\nwould keep. If they have promised to respect a free country, or an old\nfriend, to observe a sworn partnership, or to spare a harmless population,\nthey will find such restrictions chilling and irksome. They will ask some\nprofessor on what principle they are discarding it. But if they have\npromised to shoot the cross off a church spire, or empty the inkpot into\nsomebody's beer, or bring home somebody's ears in their pocket for the\npleasure of their families, I think in these cases they would feel a sort\nof a shadow of what civilised men feel in the fulfilment of a promise, as\ndistinct from the making of it. And, in consideration of such cases, I\ncannot go the whole length of those severe critics who say that a Prussian\nwill never keep his promise.\n\nUnfortunately, it is precisely this sort of actuality and fulfilment that\nmakes it urgent that Europe should put forth her whole energy to drag down\nthese antique demoniacs; these idiots filled with force as by fiends. They\n_will_ do things, as a maniac will, until he cannot do them. To me it\nseemed that some things could not be said and done. I thought a man would\nhave been ashamed to bribe a new enemy like England to betray an old enemy\nlike France. I thought a man would have been ashamed to punish the pure\nself-defence of folk so offenceless as the Belgians. These hopes must go\nfrom us, my friend. There is only one thing of which the Prussian would be\nashamed; and of that, we have sworn to God, he shall taste before the end.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMy Dear ------\n\nThe Prussianised German, of whatever blend of races he may be, has one\nquality which may perhaps be racially simple; but which is, at any rate,\nvery plain. Chamberlain, the German philosopher or historian (I know not\nwhich to call him or how to call him either) remarks somewhere that\npurebred races possess fidelity; he instances the negro and the dog--and, I\nsuppose, the German. Anyhow, it is true that there is a recognisable and\nreal thing which might be called fidelity (or perhaps monotony) which\nexists in Germans in about the same style as in dogs and niggers. The North\nTeuton really has in this respect the simplicities of the savage and the\nlower animals; that he has no reactions. He does not laugh at himself. He\ndoes not want to kick himself. He does not, like most of us, repent--or\noccasionally even repent of repenting. He does not read his own works and\nfind them much worse or much better than he had expected. He does not feel\na faint irrational sense of debauch, after even divine pleasures of this\nlife. Watch him at a German restaurant, and you will satisfy yourself that\nhe does not. In short, both in the most scientific and in the most casual\nsense of the word, he does not know what it is to have a _temper_. He does\nnot bend and fly back like steel; he sticks out, like wood. In this he\ndiffers from any nation I have known, from your nation and mine, from the\nFrench, the Spanish, the Scotch, the Welsh and the Irish. Bad luck never\nbraces him as it does us. Good luck never frightens him as it does us. It\ncan be seen in what the French call Chauvinism and we call Jingoism. For us\nit is fireworks; for him it is daylight. On Mafeking Night, celebrating a\nsmall but picturesque success against the Boers, nearly everybody in London\ncame out waving little flags. Nearly everybody in London is now heartily\nashamed of it. But it would never occur to the Prussians not to ride their\nhigh horses with the freshest insolence for the far-off victory of Sedan;\nthough on that very anniversary the star of their fate had turned scornful\nin the sky, and Von Kluck was in retreat from Paris. Above all, the\nPrussian does not feel annoyed, as I do, when foreigners praise his country\nfor all the wrong reasons. The Prussian will allow you to praise him for\nany reasons, for any length of time, for any eternity of folly; he is there\nto be praised. Probably he is proud of this; probably he thinks he has a\ngood digestion, because the poison of praise does not make him sick. He\nthinks the absence of such doubt, or self-knowledge, makes for composure,\ngrandeur, a colossal calm, a superior race--in short, the whole claim of\nthe Teutons to be the highest spiritual product of Nature and Evolution.\nBut as I have noticed a calm unity even more complete, not only in dogs and\nnegroes, but in slugs, slow-worms, mangoldwurzels, moss, mud and bits of\nstone, I am a sceptic about this test for the marshalling in rank of all\nthe children of God. Now I point this out to you here for a very practical\nreason. The Prussian will never understand revolutions--which are\ngenerally reactions. He regards them, not only with dislike, but with a\nmysterious kind of pity. Throughout his confused popular histories, there\nruns a strange suggestion that civic populations have failed hitherto, and\nfailed because they were always fighting. The population of Berlin does not\nfight, or can't; and therefore Berlin will succeed where Greece and Rome\nhave failed. Hitherto it is plain enough that Berlin has succeeded in\nnothing except in bad copies of Greece and Rome; and Prussians would be\nwiser to discuss the details of the Greek and Roman past, which we can\nfollow, rather than the details of their own future, about which we are\nnaturally not so well informed. Well, every dome they build, every pillar\nthey put upright, every pedestal for epitaph or panel for decoration, every\ntype of church, Catholic or Protestant, every kind of street, large or\nsmall, they have copied from the old Pagan or Catholic cities; and those\ncities, when they made those things, were boiling with revolutions. I\nremember a German professor saying to me, \"I should have no scruple about\nextinguishing such republics as Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua; they\nare perpetually rioting for one thing or another.\" I said I supposed he\nwould have had no scruple in extinguishing Athens, Rome, Florence and\nParis; for they were always rioting for one thing or another. His reply\nindicated, I thought, that he felt about C\u00e6sar or Rienzi very much as the\nScotch Presbyterian Minister felt about Christ, when he was reminded of the\ncorn-plucking on the Sabbath, and said, \"Weel, I dinna think the better of\nhim.\" In other words he was quite positive, like all his countrymen, that\nhe could impose a sort of Pax Germanica, which would satisfy all the needs\nof order and of freedom forever; leaving no need for revolutions or\nreactions. I am myself of a different opinion. When I was a child, when the\ntoy-trade of Germany had begun to flood this country, there was a priggish\nBritish couplet, engraven on the minds of governesses, which ran--\n\n    What the German children delight to make\n    The English children delight to break.\n\nI can answer for the delight of the English children; a just and godlike\ndelight. I am not so sure about the delight of the German children, when\nthey were caught in the infernal wheels of the modern civilisation of\nfactories. But, for the present, I am only concerned to say that I do not\naccept this line of historical division. I do not think history supports\nthe view that those who could break things could not make them.\n\nThis is the least intrusive approach by which I can touch on a topic that\nmust of necessity be a delicate one; yet which may well be a difficulty\namong Latins like yourself. Against this preposterous Prussian upstart we\nhave not only to protect our unity; we have even to protect our quarrels.\nAnd the deepest of the reactions or revolts of which I have spoken is the\nquarrel which (very tragically as I think) has for some hundred years\ncloven the Christian from the Liberal ideal. It would ill become me, in\nwhose country there is neither such clear doctrine nor such combative\ndemocracy, to suppose it can be easy for any of you to close up such sacred\nwounds. There must still be Catholics who feel they can never forgive a\nJacobin. There must still be old Republicans who feel that they could never\nendure a priest. And yet there is something, the mere sight of which should\nlock them both in an instant alliance. They have only to look northward and\nhold the third thing, which thinks itself superior to either: the enormous\nturnip-face of _ce type l\u00e0_, as the French say, who conceives that he can\nmake them both like himself and yet remain superior to both.\n\nI implore you to keep out of the hands of this Fool the quarrel of the\ngreat saints and of the great blasphemers. He will do to religion what he\nwill do to art; mix up all the colours on your palette into the colour of\nmud: and then say that only the purified eyes of Teutons can see that it is\npure white. The other day the Director of Museums in Berlin was said to be\nsetting about the creation of a new kind of Art: German Art. Philosophers\nand men of science were at the same time directed to meet round the table\nand found a new Religion: German Religion. How can such people appreciate\nart; how can they appreciate religion--nay, how can they appreciate\nirreligion? How does one invent a message? How does one create a Creator?\nIs it not the plain meaning of the Gospel that it is good news? And is it\nnot the plain meaning of good news that it must come from outside oneself?\nOtherwise I could make myself happy this moment, by inventing an enormous\nvictory in Flanders. And I suppose (now I come to think of it) that the\nGermans do.\n\nBy the fulness of your faith and even the fulness of your despair, you that\nremember Rome, have earned a right to prevent all our quarrels being\nquenched in such cold water from the north. But it is not too much to say\nthat neither religion at its worst nor republicanism at its worst ever\noffered the coarse insult to all mankind that is offered by this new and\nnakedly universal monarchy.\n\nThere has always been something common to civilised men, whether they\ncalled it being merely a citizen; or being merely a sinner. There has\nalways been something which your ancestors called _Verecundia_; which is at\nonce humility and dignity. Whatever our faults, we do not do exactly as\nthe Prussians do. We do not bellow day and night to draw attention to our\nown stern silence. We do not praise ourselves solely because nobody else\nwill praise us. I, for one, say at the end of these letters, as I said at\nthe beginning; that in these international matters I have often differed\nfrom my countrymen; I have often differed from myself. I shall not claim\nthe completeness of this silly creature we discuss. I shall not answer his\nboasts with boasts; but with blows.\n\nMy front-door is beaten in and broken down suddenly. I see nothing outside,\nexcept a sort of smiling, straw-haired commercial traveller with a notebook\nopen, who says, \"Excuse me, I am a faultless being, I have persuaded\nPoland; I can count on my respectful Allies in Alsace. I am simply loved in\nLorraine. _Quae reggio in terris_ ... What place is there on earth where\nthe name of Prussia is not the signal for hopeful prayers and joyful\ndances? I am that German who has civilised Belgium; and delicately trimmed\nthe frontiers of Denmark. And I may tell you, with the fulness of\nconviction, that I have never failed, and shall never fail in anything.\nPermit me, therefore, to bless your house by the passage of my beautiful\nboots; that I may burgle the house next door.\"\n\nAnd then something European that is prouder than pride will rise up in me;\nand I shall answer:--\n\n\"I am that Englishman who has tortured Ireland, who has been tortured by\nSouth Africa; who knows all his mistakes, who is heavy with all his sins.\nAnd he tells you, Faultless Being, with a truth as deep as his own guilt,\nand as deathless as his own remembrance, that you shall not pass this way.\"","title":"The Appetite of Tyranny: Including Letters to an Old Garibaldian","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":18261}