{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_76803/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_76803","id":"gutenberg_76803","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/76803","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Art","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Nordau, Max Simon, 1849-1923. Entartung","World history"],"text":"REGENERATION\n\n                               A REPLY TO\n                               MAX NORDAU\n\n                          WITH INTRODUCTION BY\n\n                         NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER\n                  Professor of Philosophy and Education\n               in Columbia College in the City of New York\n\n                                New York\n                           G. P. PUTNAM\u2019S SONS\n                    London: ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE & CO.\n                                  1896\n\n\n\n\n                             Copyright, 1896\n                                   BY\n                           G. P. PUTNAM\u2019S SONS\n\n\n              The Knickerbocker Press, New Rochelle, N. Y.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nMax Nordau is perhaps the most daring toreador of recent years. He\nchallenged Modern Civilization to mortal combat in the presence of\nassembled thousands. Had the customs of the Roman arena prevailed, the\nthumbs of the interested spectators would doubtless have been extended\nor pressed down in about equal numbers, when the huge beast lay\nmomentarily stunned by his blow. That Nordau had ingeniously tormented\nthe monster was apparent; had he earned the right to put an end to\nits existence? The shrill cries of the excitable and easily moved\npredominated for a moment, but they were soon drowned by the insistent\ndemands of the sober-minded for a calm consideration of the fairness of\nthe blows that had been struck, as well as of the permissibility of the\nweapons that had been used. Yet the contest, whether fair or unfair,\nhad been exciting; and it was not without its uses.\n\nIt stimulated thought among the habitually unthinking. The habit of\nreflective analysis, like letter-writing and other accomplishments that\nrequire much leisure, is slipping away from us under the pressure of\nour complex modern life. The newspaper, with its surges of insensate\npassion and unreasoned opinion, thinks for large portions of the\ncommunity; and its thinking, like the amusements of the nursery,\nexpresses itself in ways that appeal chiefly to the eye and to the\near. Information about things is too often mistaken for knowledge of\nthings. Highly specialized activities on the one hand, and the task of\nadjusting our part in the struggle for existence to economic conditions\nwholly new in the world\u2019s history, on the other, mark off our\ncivilization from any that have preceded it. The activities of modern\nmen are so numerous, so varied, and so interesting, that we often omit\nto ask on what principles they are based and whither they are tending.\nApparent success has led us to forget sometimes that all sound practice\nhas a reason behind it, and reasons are seldom asked for or given.\n\nTo say the least, then, it is somewhat surprising to be stopped on\nthe street corner and assured, with due emphasis and the appearance\nof authority, that nineteenth-century men and women are absorbed in\ninterests that mark a diseased type of mind, and are given over to a\nliterature, an art, and a music that, themselves produced by madmen,\nare rapidly reducing us all to the mad-house level; in other words,\nthat we and our boasted civilization are degenerates.\n\nThere is, as I have said, a certain use in this brutal proceeding, for\nit causes us to stop and think. It shatters our conceit and shakes our\nconfidence. If we pause only for a moment, yet pause we must. The mere\ndaring of the attack forces this. So it has come about that Nordau\u2019s\n_Degeneration_, quite apart from its intrinsic merits or demerits, has\nbeen widely read and much talked of throughout the civilized world. It\nhas provoked some anger, not a little amusement, and a fair measure\nof contempt. Yet in a certain subtle way it has set us to examining\nthe reasons that lead most of us to deny the essential viciousness and\nabnormality of some of the most salient and striking characteristics of\ncontemporary culture.\n\nIf Nordau\u2019s indictment be classed as pessimism, it at least has the\nmerit of novelty of statement. From Homer\u2019s time to the present poets\nand philosophers have not forgotten, even in moments of highest\nexaltation, to remind man that his life has a dark and hopeless side.\nOur own century has listened to Leopardi, who envied only the dead,\nand to Schopenhauer, who called man both the priest and the victim of\nnature. And yet we have not been altogether unhappy.\n\nBut Nordau is no ordinary pessimist. He does not lead us to despair\nthrough the by-paths of metaphysical subtlety, nor does he take\nadvantage of the awful mystery of pain to perplex and distract us.\nRather he drags us into the laboratory and, stretching us on a table\nof definitions made for the purpose, proceeds to measure our faces\nand our skulls, our teeth, the lobes of our ears, and our palates;\nwe pay the penalty of our individuality in being found to be \u201cmorbid\ndeviations from an original type,\u201d and are therefore degenerate. Next\ncomes an examination of a selected group of man\u2019s newer interests. The\nmusic of Wagner, the dramas of Ibsen, the romances of Zola, the art of\nthe pre-Raphaelites, the mystics, the symbolists, the Parnassians\u2014who\nbut a \u201cdecadent\u201d would treat all these alike?\u2014are passed in review\nand pronounced to be proofs of the decadence of mankind even more\nconclusive than those based upon physical measurements. All this is\ndone in the name of Science, which, reversing the procedure of Saturn,\nthus hastens to devour the parent that begot it, Modern Civilization.\n\nA long chapter might be written on the credulity of men of science.\nThe hypotheses that they have chased out of the door complacently fly\nin at the window. Many scientists, fresh from apparently important\ndiscoveries in narrow fields, need to be reminded of the lesson\ncontained in the legend of St. Augustine, who when walking on the shore\none day, absorbed in meditation, suddenly perceived a child that with\na shell was ladling the sea into a hole in the sand. \u201cWhat are you\ndoing, my child?\u201d asked St. Augustine. \u201cI am emptying the ocean,\u201d was\nthe reply, \u201cinto this hole.\u201d\u2014\u201cThat is impossible.\u201d \u201cNot more impossible\nthan for you to empty the universe into your intellect,\u201d said the\nchild, and vanished. Nordau is particularly prone to regard the small\nachievements of a certain school of alienists as having supplied him\nwith a conclusive test of all excellence. Indeed, no part of his\ndiatribe is more open to criticism than the use he makes of Science.\nIf modern science is demonstrating any one thing more clearly than\nanother, it is that the insights of the seers of our race as to the\nhighest human aspirations and the deepest needs of the human spirit,\nmeet not with contradiction but with support as knowledge of the cosmos\nbecomes more extensive and more accurate. Nordau has neglected to\nreckon with the profound truth that finds expression in the celebrated\nsaying of Lotze:\n\n\u201cThe more I myself have laboured to prepare the way for acceptance of\nthe mechanical view of Nature in the region of organic life\u2014in which\nregion this view seemed to advance more timidly than the nature of the\nthing required\u2014the more do I now feel impelled to bring into prominence\nthe other aspect which was equally near to my heart during all these\nendeavours.... It is in such mediation [between the two aspects] that\nthe true source of the life of science is to be found; not indeed in\naffirming now a fragment of one view and now a fragment of the other,\nbut in showing how _absolutely universal is the extent_, and at the\nsame time how _completely subordinate is the significance, of the\nmission which mechanism has to fulfil in the structure of the world_.\u201d\n\nThere is also hidden from Nordau\u2019s view that noble conception of the\nplace and significance of Science to which Tyndall gave expression in\nthe eloquent peroration of his Belfast address more than twenty years\nago:\n\n\u201cScience itself not unfrequently derives motive-power from an\nultra-scientific source. Some of its greatest discoveries have been\nmade under the stimulus of a non-scientific ideal.... The world\nembraces not only a Newton, but a Shakspere\u2014not only a Boyle, but a\nRaphael\u2014not only a Kant, but a Beethoven\u2014not only a Darwin, but a\nCarlyle. Not in each of these, but in all, is human nature whole.\nThey are not opposed, but supplementary\u2014not mutually exclusive, but\nreconcilable. And if, unsatisfied with them all, the human mind, with\nthe yearning of a pilgrim for his distant home, will still turn to\nthe Mystery from which it has emerged, seeking so to fashion it as to\ngive unity to thought and faith, so long as this is done, not only\nwithout intolerance or bigotry of any kind, but with the enlightened\nrecognition that ultimate fixity of conception is here unattainable,\nand that each succeeding age must be held free to fashion the\nmystery in accordance with its own needs\u2014then, casting aside all the\nrestrictions of Materialism, I would affirm this to be a field for the\nnoblest exercise of what, in contrast with the knowing faculties, may\nbe called the creative faculties of man.\u201d\n\nWhy, then, should not literature and art and music enter and occupy\nthe very field that the apostles of Science assign to them, without\nbeing exposed to the alienists\u2019 sneers for their symbolism and their\nmysticism? The truth is that Nordau is the slave of one idea, and that\nthe logical outcome of his definition and conception of abnormality.\nRibot described such a case perfectly when he said that \u201cnothing is\nmore common or better known than the momentary appropriation of the\npersonality by some intense and fixed idea. As long as this idea\noccupies consciousness, we may say without exaggeration that it\nconstitutes the individual.\u201d Degeneration constitutes Nordau. He is\nhimself an abnormality and a pathological type. Every large hospital\nfor the insane knows his representative\u2014the one sane man in a world of\nlunatics.\n\nTo perceive the true direction and to estimate the relative force of\na large human movement requires a long interval of time. Caught in\nan eddy of the moment, we may seem to be drifting backward, when in\nreality to the spectator on the shore we are being swept onward with\ngreat rapidity. The same world of experience seemed to Parmenides to\nexclude by its very nature all motion, and to Heraclitus to derive its\nonly reality from its perpetual change. It is the standard and the\npoint of view that control such judgments, and we are entitled to ask\nof any standard or point of view, _Quid juris?_ Nordau, however, has\nnot asked himself that question. Seizing upon some partially completed\nanthropological investigations, with their half-speculative inferences,\nhe has fashioned for himself a yard-stick with which to measure\ncivilization. Aristotle long ago pointed out that the true difference\nbetween the poet and the historian is to be found in the fact that the\nformer relates what may happen, the latter what has happened. One might\nsimilarly distinguish the man of science, who applies what has been\nproved, from the charlatan, who seeks to apply what has not been proved.\n\nAs a result of dissenting from Nordau\u2019s premises, method, and\nconclusions, it is by no means necessary to be forced to defend all the\nphases of modern civilization that he attacks. Some of them, no doubt,\nare unwholesome, but for reasons other than those which this critic\nadduces. Many of them are mere fleeting phenomena, confined within\nthe narrowest limits, and the world at large first heard of them from\nNordau\u2019s pages. It is only a lack of humour that can elevate such\ntraits and tendencies into the position of powerful forces in human\nculture, such as Platonism, Humanism, or Christianity. The old Sophist\nwas right when he commended humour as the test of gravity.\n\nThe author of _Regeneration_ is successful in turning the flank of\nNordau\u2019s attacking forces at more points than one. He is able at times,\nwithout over-exertion, to convict Nordau not only of lack of knowledge,\nbut of what is far worse\u2014knowledge of things that are not true. His\nview of life is more sane and better-balanced than that of Nordau,\ndespite an anti-Teutonic tendency that perhaps partakes of the nature\nof an argument _ad hominem_. The judgment of the average man who knows\nthe history of the past two centuries will sustain him in holding that\n\u201cthere are a host of indications in all civilized countries pointing\nto an increase in intellectual power, moral strength, and \u00e6sthetic\nrefinement.\u201d Those to whom Lincoln applied the affectionate designation\nof \u201cthe plain people\u201d have advanced and are advancing by tremendous\nstrides in knowledge and refinement. They, and not a group or two of\nmen and women in each of the capitals of Europe, are the real index\nto the degeneracy, or the contrary, of modern life. If democracy is\nto establish itself more widely and more efficiently as a form of\ngovernment, it must rest upon the common sense of the plain people.\nSo far from being influenced by the tendencies that Nordau exploits\nwith so much vigour, it is not improbable that even the names of the\nrepresentatives of most of those tendencies are unknown to them.\nProgress in education, in philanthropy, in commerce and industry, and\nin the comforts of life, has developed a seriousness and a sense of\nresponsibility that have brought into many an English and American face\nthe lines that distinguished the countenance of the typical Senator\nof Rome. The higher altruism of our time believes that life is not\nonly worth living, but worth working for. Long ago Mr. Herbert Spencer\nremarked that the current conception of progress is vague, and that it\nis in a great measure erroneous. It takes in, he said, not so much the\nreality of progress as its accompaniments\u2014not so much the substance\nas the shadow. Nordau, with all of the superficiality, the absence of\nany sense of proportion, and the lack of humour that so often mark the\nextreme specialist, has hardly come in sight of even the shadow.\n\n                                             NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER.\n\n  Columbia College,\n    _January, 1896._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n  CHAPTER I                                       PAGE\n\n  Who is the Critic?                                 1\n\n  CHAPTER II\n\n  Dusk or Dawn!                                     27\n\n  CHAPTER III\n\n  Mysticism and the Unknowable                      44\n\n  CHAPTER IV\n\n  The Bankruptcy of Science                         73\n\n  CHAPTER V\n\n  Symbolism and Logic                               94\n\n  CHAPTER VI\n\n  The Light of Russia                              108\n\n  CHAPTER VII\n\n  The Real Ibsen                                   132\n\n  CHAPTER VIII\n\n  Richard Wagner                                   183\n\n  CHAPTER IX\n\n  The Religion of Self                             230\n\n  CHAPTER X\n\n  An Ethical Inquisition                           241\n\n  CHAPTER XI\n\n  Vigorous Affirmations                            258\n\n  CHAPTER XII\n\n  Regeneration                                     290\n\n\n\n\nREGENERATION\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\n_WHO IS THE CRITIC?_\n\n\nVoltaire said that if all the celestial bodies are inhabited, our earth\nmust be the mad-house of the universe. To us who know the era of the\ngreat cynic only as recorded by the history of Dryasdusts, and the\nflippant memoirs and autobiographies of his contemporaries, his biting\nsarcasm cannot be considered undeserved. But, with regard to our own\ntimes, most of us would probably hesitate to brand our present state of\nculture, our modern civilization, as a fool\u2019s paradise.\n\nIt is a truism that an historical epoch can only be correctly studied\nat a distance in time, as the outlines of a mountain can only be\nstudied at a distance in space. The actor in a piece, though intimately\nacquainted with his own part and the accessories with which he comes\nin contact, cannot form a just idea of the impression which the play,\nwith its more or less successful rendering, its scenery, and other\nspectacular effects, produces on the mind of the average spectator. A\nsuper who is ignorant of stage management and of the precise results\nthe manager aims at might deem many things going on behind the stage\nboth foolish and ridiculous. To him the frantic efforts of some actor,\nor scene-shifter, to produce some ordinary effect might well appear as\nlunacy.\n\nThe judgment we form concerning the time we live in runs a great risk\nof being biassed by the narrowness of the vista we can command. The\ninterdependence of causes simultaneously at work, the co-operation of\nimpulses active at a great distance, the peculiarities of circumstances\nsurrounding each leading phenomenon, the real intentions of leading\ncharacters, secret motives in groups and parties\u2014all this represents so\nmany sealed books to the contemporary to be gradually opened only by\nfuture historians.\n\nThere are no doubt many facilities ready to hand for the man who in\nmodern times desires to study his own epoch, which were not available\nin the past. Distances are practically suppressed, the whole of\ncivilized humanity has been placed in intimate connection, a highly\ndeveloped Press records daily events everywhere in a minute fashion,\nto the making of books there is no end, and in every direction an\nelaborate mechanism is established for the obtaining of rapid and\nprecise information. In fact, the _Kammergelehrte_, who, like Kant,\nwould study the world-phenomenon without leaving his native town, would\nin our days stand a better chance of obtaining completer and exacter\ninformation than any philosopher before him.\n\nBut, despite the quasi-ubiquitousness the modern philosopher enjoys, he\nwould indulge in self-deception were he tempted to believe that he had\nsecured all the data requisite to judge the contemporaries of his race\nas they act, live, feel, and think during the closing years of this\ncentury.\n\nFor, against the easy access to information, must be placed the mass\nof intricate problems that arise with every step of progress, the\nmultitude of ideas which strive for realization, the bewilderment\nwhich ensues on crumbling systems and religions, new discoveries,\nnew theories, new and complicated associations of ideas, new and\nhazy aspirations, sympathies, and yearnings\u2014for all of which words\ncannot be coined fast enough. Every day we witness political, social,\neconomic, and psychological phenomena, the explanation of which would\ndemand not only an enormous amount of knowledge, but reasoning powers\nand a freedom from bias seldom blended in one human mind. Facts,\ncircumstances, theories, human actions, and human ideas, change and\nintermingle so constantly and so rapidly as to produce bewilderment\ncapable of misleading any philosopher who attempts to gauge them with\nthe instruments of the past and in conformity with the doctrines of the\nschool to which he belongs.\n\nWhat renders it still more difficult to appraise any epoch, and\nespecially the present one, is the intimate interdependence of all\nthe phenomena to be observed. The idiosyncrasies of a sovereign, or\nof a minister, influence legislation, legislation influences public\ninstitutions, public institutions influence the upper classes, and the\nupper classes influence the masses. But legislation, institutions,\nthe upper classes, and the people are influenced from a great number\nof other directions, while they again influence the sovereign and\nthe minister. Thus it would be impossible to attribute with accuracy\na given number of effects to special causes: for every cause is the\neffect of another cause, and every effect produces other effects.\nFor instance, art and literature may strongly influence men in power\nas well as the masses, while no one will deny that men in power, as\nwell as the political and social condition of the masses, exercise\na strong influence on art and literature. And then, on top of it\nall,\u2014as if worse to confound the confusion of the man with a system,\ntrivial incidents intervene and bring about a new series of causes\nand effects evidently destined to operate as long as humanity lasts.\nSo interdependent are the actors in the human drama, so complete is\nthe intricate and sensitive mechanism of causes and effects, and so\novercharged with energy are the social dynamos, that any fool, any\nchild, any trivial accident, may move one of the countless points\narranged by circumstances, and thus hurl the engine of events in new\nand dangerous directions.\n\nThese and many other difficulties encountered by the student of his own\ntime are largely responsible for his opinions, often savouring as much\nof his idiosyncrasy, his professional and national prejudices as of an\nindependent inquiry. In order to choose between the maze of highways\nand by-ways, in order to judge whether he moved forwards, backwards,\nor in a circle, he gropes for some kind of a compass and naturally\nclutches at that which his idiosyncrasy proffers. When we therefore\nmeet with an appraiser of his own epoch, it behooves us to bear in mind\nthe standpoint from which he has contemplated the world-phenomenon,\nand with what bias and prejudice his views have been coloured. The old\nGreek story of the sandal-maker who became prejudiced against a work\nof art because the artist had made a mistake in the arrangement of the\nsandal-strings, points its moral. The prejudices arising from trade,\npersonal interests, and many other palpable sources are not difficult\nto trace and to evade, but where is the man whose views have not been\ninfluenced by his nationality, his religion, his favourite science or\nart, his love, his hatred, or his ambition?\n\nIt is to such influences, often considered by the influenced as so many\nadvantages and seldom sufficiently noticed by his critics, that we\noften owe the apparent profundity and exhaustiveness of an appreciation\nwhich in reality is one-sided.\n\nEducation, and, still more, an intense study of one special branch\nof knowledge, rich in important and striking results, naturally tend\nto strengthen the student\u2019s faith and his belief in the capabilities\nof his favourite science. The brain-cells, influenced by the will,\nand habitually becoming stimulated by presentations\u2014emanating from\nthe subject on which the student has concentrated his attention\u2014adapt\nthemselves gradually to the perception of such presentations, and by\nre-acting on other cells render the whole organism disposed to seek\nsuch presentations. In plain language, the specialist in one science\nhas a great aptitude for discovering such causes and such effects\nas his favourite science has best elucidated, while he is tempted\nto overlook other causes and other effects which may be of equal or\ngreater importance.\n\nThe specialist attains to a mastery of his own subject, and often\nacquires a strong bias regarding other subjects, because he pursues his\ninquiries somewhat after the same fashion as the dog follows the scent\nof the game. By training, the dog is familiar with the smell of the\nanimal pursued, and, bent on following the trail, he pays no attention\nto any other scents or smells that he encounters in his course. In\nthe same way the specialist rapidly perceives and minutely studies\nany phenomena, however slight, with which his favourite science has\nrendered him familiar, while he is apt to disregard phenomena demanding\nfresh studies and threatening to be inexplicable by investigation\nconfined to the lines which he prefers to follow.\n\nThus, if a law-student were to write a treatise on our epoch, he would\nendeavour to show that the jurisprudence, the law, and the courts\u2014in\nfact, the whole legal mechanism\u2014is the most important feature in our\ncivilization, and that on which progress or retrogression most depends.\nAs remedies for our evils, he would propose simpler or more complicated\nforms of procedure, more or less enactments, according to his own\nidiosyncrasies.\n\nA military man would consider a development on military lines as true\nprogress. He would yearn to draft the whole nation into the army! He\nwould favour universal conscription, as Lord Wolseley does, and might,\nlike Count Moltke, look upon war as a healthy bracing, an epuration, of\na race, and as an indispensable corrective to over-population. He would\ncite the expansion of the chest in Germany as a proof of the power of\nmilitary training to further physical development, and would look upon\nstrict military discipline as the means of establishing moral order in\na country.\n\nA theologian would point to the immense influence exercised by\nChristianity upon humanity, and would insist upon the religious aspect\nof every question, and, like Mr. Drummond, would see in every new\ndiscovery a confirmation of his peculiar dogmas. His remedy would be\nmore ritualism, or more liberal doctrines, or more emotion in religion,\naccording to his High Church, Broad Church, or Low Church creed.\n\nPhilosophical religionists, like Mr. Benjamin Kidd and others who\npin their faith to the development of the altruistic feeling in\nhuman beings, would endeavour to reconcile all phenomena under their\nobservation with their theory of social evolution.\n\nIf therefore we wish to form a correct judgment of our own time and\nour own contemporaries, we must not allow ourselves to be guided\nexclusively by a scientist of one specialty. We ought to be all the\nmore on our guard, as the great erudition and the profound study which\neach modern specialist has brought to bear on his subject gives to his\ntheories a striking plausibility, a savour of exact science to such an\nextent as to sway our opinions in favour of the latest treatise we have\nread.\n\nPoliticians, sociologists, economists, biologists, theologians, and\nthe \u00e6sthetes have had their say and have each in their turn exercised\na periodical spell over the public mind. It is now the turn of the\nalienists. Dr. Max Nordau has by his book entitled _Degeneration_\nproduced no small sensation throughout the world, and not least\nin this country. Though his work may not have made the stir of a\nsensational novel read by the millions, there can be little doubt\nthat it has imposed itself on every educated mind in the country. It\nis no exaggeration to say that, like a sharp trumpet-blast, it has\nawakened the educated classes from the lethargy consequent upon the\ndin of clashing opinions and contradictory systems. This volume has\nonce more roused us to the fact that we, as individuals, as a nation,\nas a race, are travelling at comet-speed towards a goal of which we\nhave no inkling. It sternly suggests that we are on the wrong road and\nthat a fate of a most horrible description is rapidly befalling us\u2014an\naffliction in most people\u2019s view worse than annihilation. Madness is\nshown to be insidiously invading our minds, and by its contagious\nnature threatening to prove Voltaire\u2019s biting sarcasm a stern prophecy.\n\nIt is no wonder that his work has become as it were a nightmare\nto millions of minds. If its diagnosis and its conclusions are as\nirrefutable as to most people they appear to be, we indeed live in a\nfool\u2019s paradise: our leaders, our authorities, our men of genius,\nare not the beacons we have held them to be, but will-o\u2019-the-wisps\nluring us into the bottomless quagmires of lunacy; the progression we\nvaunted is a slippery plane sliding us back to bestiality; our means\nfor raising the masses are so many slashes at the bonds of moral\norder and decency, calculated to unloose the brutish Loke of modern\ndemocracy; unbridled animal appetites threaten to take the place of\nlaw and religion; all social order is being undermined; and the vilest\ninstincts press for gratification in lust, rapine, and murder. With\nall the solemnity, moral persuasiveness, and scientific authority of\na medical practitioner, Max Nordau tells us that a mortal disease is\ninvading our race, and that with the end of the century the \u201cdusk\u201d of\nhumanity begins.\n\nBefore we accept the views of Max Nordau, before we have recourse\nto the drastic remedies he seems to recommend, it is right that we\nshould subject his theories to the closest investigation. If his work\nwere one of exact science, there would be no necessity to refer to\nthe personality of the author, to his peculiar point of view, and to\nhis predilections. But, as his work partakes largely of the nature\nof special pleading, as his methods of reasoning are those of the\nenthusiastic specialist, and as his postulates are strongly coloured\nby racial, national, and professional bias, the more we know of him\nthe more easily shall we follow him in his progress on the highways of\nlogic and in his deviations from them. Human language is not so perfect\nas to allow us to dispense with the additional light on expressed\nideas which may be derived from one\u2019s knowledge of the speaker who\ngives utterance to them. To study the author as well as his work is\nall the more permissible, as this volume is not intended as a complete\nrefutation of Max Nordau\u2019s conclusions, but rather aims at separating\nthe dross from the gold and at giving him, as well as his work, their\nright place and their true value as telling factors in the development\nof our race. Indeed, this is exactly the method adopted by Max Nordau\nin his study, not to say dissection, of his contemporaries.\n\nIt must be clearly understood however that there is no intention of\ngoing to the length to which Max Nordau has gone in speaking of men of\nthe day\u2014an abuse of literature which recalls the literary squabbles\nof past generations. The gross vituperation and the coarse calumny\nhe levels against those he denounces will certainly not enhance his\npopularity or inspire confidence in his methods in England. In fact,\nhis frequent indulgence in personalities would have prejudiced his work\nenormously were it not for the overwhelming testimony it offers of the\nfact that its author\u2019s mind is conspicuously devoid of the sense of\nthe ridiculous. Had it not been for this peculiar mental defect, his\ntreatment of his opponents could not have failed to remind him of the\ndisputing doctors in Moli\u00e8re\u2019s _Malade Imaginaire_.\n\nHere we have to do not with the man, but with the author,\u2014not with his\nrelations to his private surroundings, but with his relation to the\npresentations he receives, the ideas he elaborates, and the conclusions\nhe proclaims.\n\nIn _Degeneration_ Max Nordau evidently strives to take a cosmopolitan\nstandpoint. Only in three or four places does he speak of Germany as\nhis own country, while he displays a remarkable erudition in foreign\nliterature, but only a superficial knowledge of foreign circumstances.\nUnconsciously however he constantly betrays his German nationality.\nTo say that he is a typical German involves by no means any slur upon\nhis views, has nothing to do with the fact that the Germans are at\nthis moment\u2014for reasons entirely independent of German worth\u2014rather\nunpopular in this country. It is his book that clearly announces him\nas a German, just as the books of Drummond and Benjamin Kidd announce\nthem to be English. In other words, his methods, his views, his\npredispositions, his standards, his ideals, are thoroughly German.\n\nFew countries have so strong a power of inspiring love for their\ninstitutions and their characteristics as Germany. Not only is the\nGerman spell over those who are born and bred in the country, but\nforeigners who reside there any length of time generally become\nthoroughly Germanized. Even English people, whose characteristic it is\nto create a little England around them wherever they go, are remarkably\nsusceptible to German influence when living in the country.\n\nDespite the propensity of many Germans, complained of by Max Nordau in\nhis book, to imitate French art and literature, the German people have\nstrongly pronounced characteristics, opinions, feelings, and views.\nWe, here in England, have ample opportunity of observing the tenacity\nof the German bias. We sometimes meet with Germans who have conquered\ntheir native propensities and thoroughly assimilated themselves with\nthe English nation. But, on the other hand, many Germans, when settled\namong us, continue to look on everything through German spectacles,\nand utterly fail to grasp, or even superficially to understand, the\nEnglish spirit. This refers, of course, only to those who are actually\nborn in Germany. The second generation is invariably more English\nthan the English. We often meet with Teutons who have come young to\nEngland, gained a position here, married English wives, brought up a\nlarge family of English children, and who yet remain as German as any\n_Spiesb\u00fcrger_ in Berlin. They do not appear so to the casual observer.\nTheir business relations, their acquaintances, their wives, and their\nchildren, being all English, expect them to be English. They therefore\nassume an English outward garb, but as soon as circumstances allow them\nto drop their English character the German characteristics of these\n\u201ctame Englishmen\u201d come out as strong as ever. These facts are elicited\nin no critical spirit, but simply as proofs of the tenacity of the\nGerman bias.\n\nThe practical result of this bias is an open or secret contempt for\nEnglish views, a distrust in English institutions, a want of sympathy\nwith the English race, and doubts about the future of the British\nEmpire.\n\nIf we wish Max Nordau\u2019s nationality to throw light on the working of\nhis mind, we must realize what are the most essential traits of the\naverage German.\n\nNot yet completely freed from feudal institutions, it is natural that\nthe German people should associate moral and political order, good\nadministration, and personal protection, with feudal institutions.\nHence an immense respect for those in authority and a contempt for\nthe masses, even on the part of the masses. Democratic government and\nindividual liberty inspire the German with great distrust, because he\nconsiders that the introduction into Germany of such features would\nmean a social upheaval in which the meagre advantages which now each\nindividual enjoys might be lost.\n\nAs in Germany all initiative belongs to the authorities, the people\nhave become accustomed to bend to superiors, and where an Englishman\nwould attempt to establish a Free Order, the Germans can conceive\nnought but discipline. A great number of enlightened Germans submit\ntacitly to all kinds of authorities because they are morally convinced\nthat this is best for themselves and their country; but a large part\nof the masses, having always found that the authorities gain their\nends by the use of police and military force, submit only because they\nare obliged. Hence a deep-rooted feeling of discontent in a nation\nconstantly compelled to do the bidding of others. This discontent has\nengendered a hatred against the upper classes similar to that which in\nFrance paved the way for the first Revolution. The fear of the outbreak\nof this hatred gives, in the eyes of the German middle-class, an extra\nhalo to authority.\n\nThe love of following authorities, instead of standing alone, is in\nGermany not confined to the domain of politics. While Englishmen, down\nto the wage-earning labourer, have, or believe they have, their own\nopinions about politics, administration, religion, social affairs, and\neven scientific problems, the Germans have an accepted authority in\neach of these branches. Were we to question, say, a hundred Germans\nin a _Bierhalle_, or any other public place, as to their opinions on\nthe above-named subjects, the replies would be simply an enumeration\nof their authorities in each branch of knowledge. Though this\ncharacteristic is a misfortune to Germany, to the Germans it savours\nof a quaint reasonableness. A German Socialist, asked why he blindly\naccepted Liebknecht\u2019s views, replied: \u201cI should be both silly and\nconceited if I, a scantily educated man, with no leisure and means for\nstudy, could believe myself capable of forming a better opinion than\nHerr Liebknecht, who has brought a remarkable mind and great knowledge\nto bear on political questions.\u201d\n\nThis reasoned self-depreciation, this blind faith in authorities,\naccounts for much in Germany which would be impossible in England. The\nway, for example, in which the youths of the country are forced into\nthe ranks of the army against their will and inclination would be out\nof the question with us. Here, the great majority of young men would\nsimply refuse, and to coerce them by military executions would involve\na wholesale slaughter against which the whole nation would revolt.\nThere have been young men in Germany who, on principle, have resisted\nthe compulsory service, but brutal punishment has quickly dissuaded\nthose of their comrades who secretly admired them from following their\nexample. Nothing could be more unjust to the German people than to\nattribute to cowardice this lamb-like submission. German youths are\nas brave as those of any other nation, and what to us English might\nappear a want of both moral and physical courage is simply the powerful\ninfluence of the German bias.\n\nEnough has been said to show that German education and German\nsurroundings tend to foster in the human mind veneration for authority\nand aristocracy, contempt for the plebeian, distrust of liberty, a firm\nbelief in the unquenchable power of man\u2019s lowest instincts, a nervous\ndemand for authoritative repression of human passions, contentment with\na prosaic existence, small resources, and poor prospects.\n\nIt is natural that a nation whose mind is moulded in such a form\nshould despair of the practical realization of its ideals; that the\naspirations of the German race for liberty, enjoyment, and romance\nshould seek an outlet in the realms of the imagination; and that the\nGermans should be a sentimental race. In this they differ diametrically\nfrom our nation. The young German, when his humdrum work-day is over,\nwill plunge into books of poetry, romance, and adventure. He will\nworship and eagerly follow his pet heroes, but to emulate them in\npractical life, as a rule, does not occur to him.\n\nHis romantic admiration of female beauty, and his sentiment of love,\nhave nothing to do with his marriage. He postpones, as a rule, the\ntaking to himself a wife until he is fairly successful in life, when\npure romantic love has ceased to exercise any spell over him, and\nhe expects that his marriage should improve his social position and\nprocure him a circle of desirable friends. His poetical notions of love\ndo not interfere with the choice of a wife. What he looks for is a\nyoung woman with practical qualities, likely to be a useful _Hausfrau_,\nand when he has found her, he loses no time in suppressing all her\npoetical notions and soon reduces her to a submissive drudge.\n\nNo suspicion of inconsistency enters the mind of an average German\nwhen he reads or writes romances of love and chivalry in which the\nhero shows the most refined courtesy, commits deeds of self-abnegation\nand daring in honour of his lady-love, and exercises the utmost tact\nin shielding her from every harsh and unpleasant impression, and at\nthe same time treats his wife as one devoid of all claims upon his\nconsideration. He will exact from her such small menial services as the\nslave performs for his master. He will expect her to work constantly\nfor him, the family, and the house. He will not allow her enough\ntime or money for her toilet, for pleasure, for book, and social\nintercourse. He will not stir to save her trouble or fatigue. He will\ncome to the table in dressing-gown and slippers, and coolly look for\nspecial dishes for himself, while his wife and children have to content\nthemselves with cheap garbage.\n\nGermans of the middle-class who come to England frequently express\ntheir amazement at the way in which English husbands constantly pay\nattention to their wives. They call it undignified for the breadwinner\nand master of the house, on return from a day of professional work, to\n\u201cdance attendance\u201d on his wife, whose duty it is to serve her husband.\n\nThe German, prior to marriage, allows his poetical notions to be\ndisturbed as little by his sexual emotions as by his marriage plans.\nIn a methodical and business-like way he gratifies the former\nin police-supervised establishments, and what he looks upon as\n\u201cconstitutional sprees\u201d are never allowed to interfere with the course\nof his affairs. After a night of debauch he will turn up in his studio,\nhis office, or his home, smiling and happy as if nothing had happened.\n\nWe record these observations with no desire to criticise or to\nunderrate the German character. Nor do we wish to insinuate that\nhypocrisy and profligacy are non-existent in England. We simply wish\nto show that the development of the German race has induced them to\nconceive ideals entirely unrealizable, and to dream of aims so far off\nin time as to render them unattainable.\n\nIt will be evident to all who have read _Degeneration_ that Max Nordau\nis under the influence of a strong German bias. As we proceed, we shall\nhave occasion to point out how in many instances this bias has warped\nhis perceptions, his reasoning, and his conclusions.\n\nFrom characteristics revealed in his work, the observant reader will,\nno doubt, conclude that Max Nordau belongs to the Jewish race. The view\nhe takes of the disgraceful Jew-baiting tendencies now prevailing in\nGermany is based on exactly the same mistakes committed by the Jews\nthemselves, as we shall have an opportunity of verifying later on. He\nis evidently a free-thinking Jew, a type which we meet with everywhere,\nand against which as few objections can be raised as against any\nother type of man. The free-thinking Jew is generally clever,\nwell-instructed, moral, and cheerful. His good qualities however\ndo not prevent him from having his peculiar characteristics, which\nnaturally influence his perceptions and his feelings. He has generally\na cut-and-dried life-philosophy based on science and common-sense as\nwell as on Jewish authorities. He distrusts democracy, especially\nChristian democracy, and feels never quite safe except under laws and\ninstitutions which allow him to assume such ascendancy as his mental\nqualifications can secure for him, and those who think with him. He\ndoes not seek for primary causes, and sets up no spiritual ideals.\nThough he may not be religious, he has yet retained something of the\nmonotheist creed, the predilection for worldly affairs, and the habit\nof looking forward to a future life rather in his descendants than in\na heaven\u2014a view which always characterized his race. His philosophy is\nnothing if not practical. His aims are immediate, and, as a rule, he\neagerly embraces all the teachings of the materialist scientists.\n\nMax Nordau is a modern scientist. He is not a pioneer in science, but\na most persevering and plodding student of the works of others. He\nbelongs to that class of _savants_ who spend almost all their time and\nall their energy in reading up the authorities. So vast an erudition\nas he has acquired cannot be attained to without some sacrifice in\nother directions. The constant absorption of other peoples\u2019 opinions\nand theories compels the judgment to lean more and more on authorities,\nand this unfits it, to some extent, for independent action. It is the\nindefatigable readers who most blindly follow authorities, and it\nsuffices to glance at Max Nordau\u2019s dedication to Professor Lombroso\nto understand to what an extent he is subject to the influence of\n\u201cMasters.\u201d\n\nThe pride taken by a scientist in his science, and the great practical\nresults achieved by scientific investigations, naturally tend to\nfoster an implicit confidence in its tenets. This has been especially\nthe case during the last decades, so remarkable for religious\ntolerance. As the faith in old dogmas has receded, science has\nadvanced, and in many cases taken its place. That such has been the\ncase has naturally flattered the votaries of science, and tempted them\nto become prophets as well as investigators. They have come to look\nupon systems as dogmas, speculations as absolute truths, and in this\nfashion scientific superstition tends to take the place of religious\nsuperstition.\n\nThe scientifically superstitious man is an example of the dangers\nof a little knowledge. Not that our men of science, including the\nsuperstitious scientists, are defective in such knowledge as is\nattainable at our present stage, but the sum total of all human\nknowledge is still, and is probably destined ever to be, only partial\nand extremely superficial. Compared with the knowledge in the past,\nmodern science represents an immense progress, but as to throwing light\non the great secret of the Universe, far from having done anything of\nthe sort, it has, on the contrary, revealed more and more inexplicable\nwonders, and placed us face to face with more insoluble problems.\nThough trite, the aphorism that the more we learn the more we realize\nour ignorance is truer to-day than ever. It is natural and excusable\nthat devotees of a science which to them has revealed wonderful\nresults should raise abnormal expectations with regard to its future\npossibilities, and also that vanity, a weakness often co-existent with\nvast knowledge, should prompt a scientist to extol and glorify science\nfar beyond the bounds of reason; for any worship offered to science\nrebounds necessarily on its high priests. This impossibility to realize\nthe limits in which science moves, and the yearning for admiration, lie\nat the base of scientific superstition.\n\nThe scientifically superstitious man believes that science has\nadequately replied to those great questions which humanity has been\nasking itself for the last five thousand years. How was creation\noriginated? For what purpose did it come into existence? What is man?\nWhat does the scheme of humanity involve? Have we existed before our\nbirth? Shall we live after death? What is the origin of evil? What\nis eternity? What is boundlessness in space? What is reason? What is\ninstinct? and so on.\n\nIf his excessive study has not seriously impaired his independent\nreasoning powers, the superstitious scientist may confess that these\nquestions have not been replied to by science, but there will still\nlurk in his mind the belief that one day science will answer them.\n\nHe does not distinguish between nomenclature, registration, and\nclassification on the one hand, and explanation on the other. When he\nhas named any newly-discovered substance, force, or phenomenon, he\nimagines that he has explained them. He believes that he has accounted\nfor what is called matter when he has evolved the atom, and that he has\nunveiled the secret of life when he has discovered the protoplasm or\nthe cell.\n\nAll scientists are not affected by scientific superstition. They\ngenerally suffer from it in an inverse ratio to the actual knowledge\nthey have acquired. The pioneer in science generally exhibits less of\nthis weakness than those who simply act as commentators and elaborators\nof other men\u2019s discoveries.\n\nThe votaries of certain sciences are less apt to indulge in scientific\nsuperstition than those of other branches. Thus, astronomers rarely\nexhibit any such symptoms, while biologists are more apt to do so, and\npsychologists are more scientifically superstitious than any other\nclass of scientists. It might be hazardous to attempt an explanation\nof this fact, but may it not be found in the obviousness of outward\ninfinity, and the impalpability of inward infinity?\n\nLater on we shall have ample occasion to show to what an extent Max\nNordau\u2019s mind has been clouded by scientific superstition.\n\nFinally, it must be pointed out that Max Nordau is an enemy to France.\nIt is only human in any German. The stupendous armament of France\nis ostentatiously promoted with the object of revenge upon Germany.\nFrance, in her sulks over the lost provinces, takes every opportunity\nof showing animosity, and this despite the conciliatory attitude of her\nGovernment.\n\nThough nearly a quarter of a century has elapsed since the disastrous\nwar between Germany and France, the bad feeling between the two\nnations has unfortunately been kept up. France cannot forget the loss\nof her provinces, and, though the attitude of the French Government\nis conciliatory, outbursts of a feeling of hatred against Germany,\naccompanied by provocative language on the part of irresponsible men,\nconstantly occur.\n\nThe German people, with a vivid recollection of the French invasion\nearly in the century, and perhaps taking the expressions of the\nwar-party in France too seriously, look upon the French nation as\ntheir arch-enemies. By the celebration of anniversaries painful to the\nFrench, and other means, the German Government keeps the animosity\nbetween the two nations alive, and impresses the people with the\nopinion that the heavy taxes it has to pay for armaments are made\nindispensable by the enmity of France. It, is therefore, natural that\nhatred against France should prevail in Germany.\n\nWe understand that Max Nordau for a considerable time was the Paris\ncorrespondent of German papers, and we may take for granted that he\nwould not have been able to please his German readers had he not been\nstrongly biassed in favour of Germany against France\u2014a fact to which\nhis work bears ample witness.\n\nSuch is, then, the man who, in his undaunted faith in his science and\nin himself, in the name of truth and the welfare of humanity, and\nundeterred by the penalties of the Great Council and Hell Fire, has\nsaid to his brethren,\u2014to the one, \u201cYou are Raca!\u201d and to the other,\n\u201cThou fool!\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n_DUSK OR DAWN!_\n\n\nNordau\u2019s theory is that the educated classes of the world are\ndegenerating; that the peculiarities in passions, tastes, pastimes, and\nmoods, bear witness to such degeneration; that the cause must be found\nin the physical condition of the brains of such authors and artists as\nfor the time being have the ear and the eye of the public; that the\nremedy against degeneration may be found in a moral quasi-compulsory\nsupervision on the part of the non-degenerate over degenerate authors\nand artists. If we are not entirely exact in this summary of his\npostulates and conclusions, it is to a great extent Nordau\u2019s fault,\nbecause nowhere does he give any decided statement of the scope of his\nbook.\n\nIn his first chapter he goes out of his way in order to protest against\nthe misconception which represents him as having insinuated that the\nwhole of humanity exhibited signs of decay, and he declares that his\nremarks apply exclusively to the educated classes. Were this absolutely\ntrue, there would have been but small occasion for his remarkable\nwork. But over and over again in the pages of _Degeneration_ he speaks\nof the masses as partly affected by degeneration, and of the danger of\nthe contamination spreading from the educated classes to the masses. He\nmentions the extreme Socialists and the Anarchists as the victims of\nthe mental disease he investigates. And yet he flatters himself that\nthe proletariat is not as the upper classes are, and bases his opinion\non the fact that they appear satisfied with the old forms of art and\npoetry, that they prefer George Ohnet\u2019s novels to the works of the\nsymbolists, and Mascagni\u2019s music to that of Wagner.\n\nThese statements evidently emanate from one who has mingled little with\nthe people. The truth is that the newest books, the newest music, the\nnewest pictures, only slowly reach the working classes, and when such\nworks are the outcome of temporary fashion and mood, they might not\nreach them at all. But this by no means proves that the working classes\ndo not experience the impulses which prompt the predilections of the\nupper classes.\n\nIf Nordau\u2019s views of the proletariat in general were confirmed by\nactualities prevailing among the German proletariat, a heavy load would\nbe lifted from the shoulders of the German Government. But, judging\nfrom the German Press\u2014the official Press as well as the Socialistic\u2014or\nfrom the speeches of so high an authority as the Emperor himself,\nthere exists but little of the Philistine contentment with the present\norder of things of which the author speaks. On the contrary, the\nEmperor complains that the discontented working classes are losing\ntheir respect for things that used to be sacred to them, such as\npatriotism, feudal loyalty, religion, etc.\n\nDoes Nordau mean to tell us that the pornographic novels of certain\nFrench authors, that the works of \u00c9mile Zola and other realists, are\nnot read by the masses in France? Who then pays for the enormous\neditions issued after millions have read them in _feuilleton_? Or does\nhe wish us to believe that only the aristocracy and the upper classes\nin France have been affected by the mysticism which finds its outlet in\nthe pilgrimage to Lourdes?\n\nAs to the working classes in the English-speaking countries, which, by\nthe way, signify so little to Nordau that he not even once mentions\nthem in his work, are they not children of their time, and do they\nnot reflect every tendency, every virtue, and every vice in the\nupper classes? Not only would Nordau find, were he to investigate\nthe matter, that those stigmata of degeneration which he refers to\nas such\u2014Individualism and Anarchism\u2014are making big strides among the\nEnglish-speaking working classes, but that the taste for criminal and\nrealistic literature is growing in popularity. He would even find\nWagner\u2019s music intensely applauded by audiences recruited from the\nworking class.\n\nFar from developing ethically in different directions, the upper and\nthe lower classes in this country move together, each simultaneously\ninfluencing the other. While the lower classes follow the upper classes\nin many things\u2014for example, politics, dress, etc.\u2014the upper classes\nobtain their comic songs, their humorous stories, and most of their fun\nfrom the lower classes.\n\nThe impartial observer cannot fail to notice the kinship which exists\nbetween the proclivities of the two extremes of English society\u2014the\nwealthiest nobility and the poorest labourers. Both these classes are\nintensely fond of sports, both degrade sport by betting, both are given\nto lavish expenditure, both pride themselves on physical force and\npluck above everything. Both are prone to disregard the sanctity of\nmarriage. Both indulge freely in the pleasures of eating and drinking.\nIndividuals of both classes get on together better than they do with\nthe middle classes. And both are only superficially religious.\n\nPerhaps this remarkable community of tastes and views may account\nfor what has always been an inexplicable enigma to foreigners,\u2014the\nconservative working man.\n\nNordau classes, among the indications of decay, the yearning for\nfreedom from outward control and for complete personal independence. It\nis true he takes for granted that such yearnings for individual liberty\naim at the realization of bestial propensities now, according to him,\nkept in check only by law, police, and public opinion. We shall, later\non, find that he has completely misunderstood the attempts to shake\noff all shackles which he has noticed. Here it suffices to point out\nthat the longing for individual freedom, which manifests itself in a\nthousand ways unobserved by Nordau, and in the upper classes takes\nthe shape of a revolt against conventionality, is conspicuous among\nthe working classes of Great Britain. This year\u2019s elections have\nproved beyond doubt that the tendency towards State Socialism which\ncharacterized the Liberal policy is fast becoming distasteful to the\nrank and file of voters. The tyranny, which, in the name of Socialism,\nwas exercised by the Trades Unions, will soon be a thing of the past.\nWhen at its height of development the Trades Unions hardly comprised\none-fifth of the working classes, and now already the movement is in\nfull retrogression. The Free Labour Association, though only lately\ncalled into existence, meets with increasing support, and may no doubt\nbe looked upon as an expression of our working classes\u2019 new-born love\nof freedom.\n\nThis change of mind, or, as Nordau would call it, this degeneration,\nalso accounts for the present halt in the advance of the Socialistic\npropaganda and the rapid spread of moderate but decisive Anarchist\nopinions which in no small degree contributed to the recent\nConservative victory at the polls.\n\nWhat is here stated regarding the British working classes is true\nregarding the working classes of all the English-speaking countries.\nEverywhere we find a strong yearning for freedom from control. The\nremarkable point about the expressions of this yearning is that, though\nthe votaries of the revolt against State tyranny have so far not been\nable to formulate any complete or practical scheme for the life of\na State, or community, governed by the best instincts of the human\nbeing instead of by law, their views are rapidly gaining ground. This\nis especially the case in the United States, where Mr. Tucker, the\neditor of a little journal called _Liberty_, is steadily extending his\ninfluence.\n\nThe author of _Degeneration_ distorts reality when he supposes that\nthe upper classes of a country can be corrupt and degenerate, while\nthe masses conform to that German Philistine ideal\u2014a very poor one\nindeed\u2014which Nordau would fain hold up to them. This is proved by the\nfact that it is in their relations with the masses that the corruption\nof the upper classes becomes conspicuous, and that only through\nresponse from the masses can many forms of such corruptions become\npossible.\n\nIt would take us too far to record all the proofs that actualities\nfurnish of this fact. We shall simply point out one of the many\nconditions in the masses which promote corruption in the educated\nclasses, namely, poverty. The appalling, demoralizing, brutalising\npoverty in the large modern cities\u2014this poisonous fungus grown out of\nmodern government and political corruptions, not only kills the sense\nof self-respect and decency in its victims, but renders prostitution,\nthrough sheer hunger and suffering, the trade of millions. It is\npoverty among the masses which undermines the artistic feeling of the\nnation, stands in the way of applied art, and compels the caterer of\npopular amusements to appeal to low passions and brutal instincts. Our\nepoch is not the first example in history where masses of destitute\npeople exercise all their ingenuity in corrupting the wealthy citizens\nin the hope of snatching some crumbs of their wealth.\n\nDire poverty it is, with its hovels, its rags, and its diseases, which\ngives riches their immense value in the eyes of the people. It creates\na thirst for gold. No man thinks himself safe from falling into the\nabyss of modern poverty until he has amassed a large fortune and placed\nhimself in the position of amassing more. The love of wealth corrupts\nLiterature, Art, the Press. It is at the base of all financial,\npolitical, administrative scandals. It is responsible for mercenary\nmarriages, which fill the law courts, pollute society, and contaminate\nthe home.\n\nThe poverty of the masses paralyses the efforts of honest industries,\nhonest trades, and honest professions. The men who succeed are not\nthose who benefit their fellow-men, but those who ruthlessly trample\nthem under foot in their heedless race for gold. It is a well-known\nfact that the upper classes are not prolific, and would die out were\nthey not recruited from the ranks; if therefore the state of the masses\nis such as to allow its worst element to rise to influential positions\nin society, demoralization of the masses must inevitably produce\ndemoralization of the classes.\n\nWe will leave it to the thinking public to consider to what extent\nother conditions of the masses, besides poverty, react in all countries\non the upper classes\u2014what the effects are, first on the masses, and\nthen on the classes, of corrupt and retrograde churches, compulsory\nservice in the army, police tyranny, bad and unjust laws, tutelage\nunder pragmatical Philistines, caste institutions, official newspapers,\nState-regulated arts and entertainments, administrative favouritism,\netc.\n\nBut Nordau takes no heed of such all-powerful causes of corruption.\nHe sees degeneration only in the upper classes, and, placing the cart\nbefore the horse, he regards what he considers the degenerated author\nand artist as the cause of a state of affairs of which they are the\nvery last products.\n\nThere are many passages in his book that strongly suggest that he is\nnot completely sincere in his one-sided view. The savage blows he\nsometimes deals at the Anarchists bear witness that this form of\u2014as he\nwould call it\u2014degeneration among the masses caused him a considerable\namount of uneasiness. Judging by the similarity of his language and\nthat of the Emperor of Germany, he might well be commissioned to brand\nboth Socialists and Anarchists as wild beasts. Be this as it may, his\nfew allusions to the corruption of the masses serve to enhance the\nuntrustworthiness of the signs of degeneration which he points out in\nthe upper classes.\n\nAmong these figure prominently\u2014who would believe it?\u2014modern female\ntoilets. And why? Not because they are indecent, as they have often\nbeen in other periods, but because they are eccentric. Is there then a\nnormal dress for ladies? Or what code is there in existence to which\nNordau can appeal? Is it a sign of degeneration to hold that one of the\nchief objects of toilets is to be beautiful and to enhance the beauty\nof the wearer? And ought a lady who dresses according to this principle\nto be put down as a dweller on the border-land of madness? If women\nlove to dress well, and men love to behold them well-dressed, would it\nnot be madness to adopt ugly and monotonous toilets?\n\nIt is, of course, not difficult to see that the author\u2019s standard of\nfemale toilet is the plain and ugly dress of the German housewife, and\nthat he has never realized the delight which an Englishman takes in\nseeing his wife richly dressed, and in a way that suits her face and\nform. If Nordau\u2019s standard of female dress is the severe draperies of\nthe antique, he does not say so. But, if it be, we must remind him that\nthe beauty of the classic draperies was borrowed from the beauty of the\nforms they revealed or partly displayed.\n\nWith the best will, we could not in northern Europe emulate the\nGreeks in dress. There are two objections: the climate, which\ndemands warm covering; the sense of may-be false modesty, inherited\nfrom the early Christian ages, which prevents the display of human\nforms. The time will no doubt come when humanity is sufficiently\npure-minded\u2014sufficiently degenerated, as Nordau would probably say\u2014to\ndress in clinging draperies, to expose the form more freely indoors\nand in warm weather; and who would say that morality would not be\nthe gainer? A movement in this direction is already apparent. The\nskirt-dance represents one stage. The appearance of an actress without\nshoes or stockings might well herald a return to sandals, and the\nabandonment of the barbarous fashion of cramping children\u2019s feet in\npointed shoes.\n\nBut to call the women of European society degenerate because, under the\npresent circumstances, they do not go about in light tunics, displaying\ntheir feet, their arms, and one leg, is hardly fair.\n\nOur great alienist is very severe on the men of society as well, more\nespecially for the manner in which they trim their beards. We cannot\nhelp sympathizing with men who wear a double-pointed beard when they\nare told that they are on the high road to lunacy because they ape\nLucius Verrius, a gentleman whose portrait they have probably never\nseen. Such stigmata of folly could have been pointed out only by a man\nwhose mind is completely devoid of a sense of the ridiculous.\n\nTo anybody who has not a special point to prove at all cost, it will be\npatent that throughout the whole course of history educated men never\ndressed more soberly than now. In this matter English fashion governs\nthe world, and the ruling ideas in Englishmen\u2019s dress are durability,\ncomfort, and adaptability to the occasions on which it is worn.\nContinental men may not adhere so strictly to these ideas, but there is\ngood reason to believe that in a short time they will do so.\n\nModern room and house decorations are, according to Nordau, so many\nindications of degeneration and decay. That there are many rooms\nand houses eccentrically furnished and decorated throughout the\ncivilized world no one would deny. But compared with the number of\nhouses and rooms chastely furnished and decorated in a manner which\nis incomparably more pleasant and attractive than the average rooms,\nespecially in Germany and England thirty years ago, these abodes of\neccentrics sink into insignificance. As to the decoration of public\nhalls and places of amusement, we surely notice an improvement which\ncould not point to degeneration. Hardly in any European town would such\nwall decorations be now permitted as disfigured the walls of public\nplaces of amusement and dancing-halls in Germany some thirty years\nago\u2014the Apollo Saal of Hamburg, to wit, the walls of which represented\nhell in the worst taste possible.\n\nHere, again, Nordau gives us no standard to go by. He does not tell\nus what the house or the room of a rational being should be like, or\nto what extent a wealthy man may indulge in a freak, or amuse his\nfriends by grotesque furniture and bizarre decorations, without being\ndegenerated.\n\nThe enjoyments of society especially present symptoms which cause our\npsychologist to tremble for the sanity of the upper classes. Under this\nhead, we expected him to say something of the increasing taste for\nhealthy games and sport, for travel, and the amateur practice of the\narts for amusement\u2019s sake. Had he been willing to look at the question\nfrom both sides, he might have said something about the increasing love\nof science, especially social science; of good books as well as bad\nones; of the high prices fetched by the paintings of the old masters,\neven those not belonging to the pre-Raphaelite period, consequently\nreal works of art according to Nordau. He might have acknowledged\nthe improved tone in social gatherings and the marked diminution in\nconvivial drunkenness.\n\nWhile sitting in judgment upon the upper classes of Europe, why\nshould he not have noticed the more serious side of their lives as\nwell as their enjoyments, as manifested in subscriptions to hospitals\nor orphanages, and institutes of every description; sick-nursing\nestablishments, where ladies of high rank and wealth give their\npersonal services, sacrifices of time and comfort in the endeavour\nto brighten the lives of the poor, to save fallen women, to assist\nreleased prisoners, to protect children and even animals from cruelty?\nWe say, purposely, nothing of all the charitable work done in\nconnection with churches, because Nordau and his admirers might not\nrecognise any results of religious feeling as a proof of sanity.\n\nBut all these emphatic and unmistakable indications of the state of\nsociety\u2014at least as valuable as the manifestations of vice, hysteria,\nand eccentricity\u2014are ignored. On the other hand, he makes much of the\nattempts which here and there have been made, especially in Paris,\nwith representations appealing to many senses at once; for instance,\npictures exhibited with music, musical recitals in darkened rooms,\netc. Such cases are not only extremely rare, but simply are another\ncombination of many arts hardly more complicated than that represented\nby operas, in which dance[,] music, poetry, and painting are mingled in\norder to please.\n\nIn what recorded period, and in what nation, have there not been\nattempts to create new sources of enjoyment? Why should not attempts\nbe made at advance in amusements as well as in any other feature of\nour civilization? That many of these experiments appear silly, and\nend in utter failure, ought to surprise nobody, and scientists the\nleast. Any one who has tried to invent something new, to ascertain by\nexperiments some scientific fact, or to solve a physical or mechanical\nproblem, ought to know that a very large number of experiments are\nbound to fail before success is achieved. It is strange to find in\nour days a scientist condemning, as the beginning of folly, that\ndissatisfaction with existing things which is the primary motor of all\nprogress and all knowledge. By doing so he ranges himself on the side\nof those Philistines who burnt the apostles of progress as heretics and\nimprisoned the pioneers of science as madmen.\n\nThe unrest which our psychologist notices in the educated classes\nexists as well among all the lower classes of Europe, though among them\nit reveals itself in other manifestations. It springs however from\nthe same source\u2014a strong instinctive feeling, largely corroborated by\njudgment, that human life in all spheres is, in the present epoch,\nutterly out of harmony with nature, with our irresistible instincts,\nand all those noble aspirations, on the realization of which our\nself-respect, our ease of mind, and our happiness alone can be based.\nIt is not alone the present feeling of incongruity which disturbs\nhumanity, but the fast-ripening conviction that we are moving in a\nwrong direction inspires despair, pessimism in some, and a desire for\nhazardous new departures in others.\n\nThis sense of unrest, this craving for change, far from being symptoms\nof degeneration, are the first faint indications of renewing vitality.\nIf decay there be, it is simply the fermentation which precedes\ngermination.\n\nTwo opposing principles, two different systems, two classes of\nantagonistic institutions, cannot exist in the same place and at the\nsame time. When therefore old things have been tried _ad nauseam_ and\nconstantly found wanting, any unprejudiced man, nay, even an animal,\nmust experience a desire to destroy them. This feeling naturally\nbecomes strongest in the man with an imaginative and aspiring mind:\nfor besides the general disgust of old things, he sees in them the\nchief obstacles to better and higher things. The axe must precede the\nplough, because the forest cannot co-exist with the wheat-field. The\ngrowing enmity against old dogmas, old authorities, old forms among\nthe educated and artistic classes, the kindling rage of the masses\nagainst existing institutions, signal the clearing of the rank jungle\nand the pestilential swamps prior to cultivation. The leading features\nof modern culture have up till now been submission to authorities,\nviolation of nature, sacrifice of individual liberty, and progression\non Collectivist lines. What wonder then that those who keenly feel the\npresent degradation of man, achieved under old conditions, should turn,\nagainst these and clamour for liberty, nature, and self?\n\nNordau, with his German-Philistine ideas, with his head crammed\nfull of authoritative teaching, and biassed by the clap-trap of the\ncommonest Collectivism, has utterly misunderstood the phenomena which\nhe has only partially observed. He does not allow for the mistakes,\nthe exaggerations, and the eccentricities committed by men who try to\ngive expression to their feelings, their yearnings, their aspirations,\nunhampered by traditional bonds. He is bewildered because a movement\nspringing entirely from feeling and instinct does not follow a fixed\nprogramme, or some dry philosophical system. He under-estimates the\nvalue of an ethical revolution, because so far it has not reached\nits constructive stage; and because the new apostles of liberty,\nintoxicated by their self-liberation, run amuck indiscriminately\nagainst all old things, be they good or bad; because the movement is in\nthe hands of extremists, enthusiasts, and sentimentalists, and still\nawaits the guiding hand of the unbiassed logician, the cool-headed\nsociologist and economist, capable of harmonizing it with practical\nlife and moral order.\n\nNordau, by his book, has forfeited his claim to be one of these.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\n_MYSTICISM AND THE UNKNOWABLE_\n\n\nOf the good things contained in Nordau\u2019s book which should secure for\nit a place in the study of every educated man, his fourth chapter\nentitled \u201cEtiology\u201d figures conspicuously. He deals here with the\ncauses\u2014not the primary economic and sociological causes, but the\nimmediate causes\u2014of the increasing bodily debilities and mental\nderangements characteristic of our epoch. Such facts, or generally\nassumed facts, as that the average term of human life is extending;\nthat the average stature of man has increased since the middle ages,\nrendering the armour of mighty men of those days too small for\nmiddle-sized men of our generation; that the average chest-measure\nin the German army is expanding; that personal beauty of children,\nwomen, and men is in the ascendant; that many men attain to a great\nage without the slightest sign of diminished mental power;\u2014all these\nfacts might appear so many contradictions to Nordau\u2019s assertions in the\nchapter alluded to.\n\nBut, though the consideration of them might induce him to modify\nsome of the minor points, they are not completely inconsistent with\nhis general reasoning. He warns us that the excessive consumption of\nspirits and tobacco, the use of opiates and poisons in general, produce\ndebility and premature death. Bad food, bad air, bad dwellings, and a\ngreat number of other disadvantages which town dwellers, especially\nthe poor, must endure, are no doubt at least as harmful to body and\nmind as he proves. He rightly attributes a great number of nerve\ndiseases to the prostration and fatigue consequent upon over-exertion\nand over-excitement, which seems inevitable in an epoch of railways,\ntelegraphs, and machinery.\n\nThe whole of his chapter \u201cEtiology,\u201d however, dealing as it does with\nthe degeneration of the masses, seems to contradict what he says in\nhis first chapter about the upper classes only being affected by _fin\nde si\u00e8cle_ degeneration, while the masses experience only a more or\nless slight touch of it. It also seems to disprove his theory that\ndegenerate authors and artists are the chief cause of degeneration\namong the upper classes, a view which leads him to overlook the\nmost palpable and most powerful causes for the production of those\npsychological phenomena throughout civilized humanity which he notices\nonly among the upper classes.\n\nIn discussing degeneration it is of the utmost importance to know how\nthe affliction progresses\u2014whether certain authors and artists were\ndegenerated, and then affected the upper classes\u2014or whether the upper\nclasses were degenerated and thus produced the degenerated authors\nand artists. Nordau seems to vacillate between the two opinions, or\nhe considers the pernicious influence to have been reciprocal. It\nis however clear that he regards these authors and artists, as well\nas those members of the upper classes who sympathize with them, as\ndwellers on the border-land between sanity and madness. The stigmata,\nor the signs of distorted minds, he divides\u2014as they necessarily must be\ndivided\u2014into bodily stigmata and mental stigmata. The bodily stigmata\nare of course malformations of the head, and he lays particular stress\non the conformation of the ear, its more or less projecting position,\nthe shape of the lobe, or its clinging to the head. It would have\nbeen charity and justice on his part to have explained that, while\nthese stigmata are frequently found on lunatics and idiots, there are\nprobably millions of people who bear them without being demented, or\neven eccentric.\n\nOn the other hand, it cannot be denied that there are thousands of\nlunatics who possess well-shaped heads and ears.\n\nHe relies however but little on the bodily stigmata, and finds them\nonly on a few of his subjects. He deals, of course, chiefly with the\nmental stigmata, and among these he gives mysticism a prominent place.\nHe quotes from Legrain to the effect that \u201cmystical thoughts are to\nbe laid to the account of insanity and degeneration,\u201d but Legrain\nadds at once that they are observable in two states\u2014in epilepsy and\nin hysterical delirium. According to his authority we consequently\nknow that those who suffer from epilepsy and delirium are apt to be\nmystical. But Legrain would probably be the first to object to the\nconclusion that all those who are mystically inclined suffer from\nepilepsy and delirium.\n\nIn his definition of mysticism Nordau says that \u201cthe word describes a\nstate of mind in which the subject imagines that he sees or divines\nunknown and inexplicable relations amongst phenomena, discerns in\nthings hints at mysteries, and regards them as symbols.\u201d But he adds,\n\u201cby which dark powers seek to unveil, or, at least, to indicate all\nsorts of marvels which he endeavours to guess, though generally in\nvain.\u201d\n\nWe have divided his definition into two parts, because placed in one\nsentence it seems an incorrect and unfair definition, the former part\nof which might be used as a proof of degeneration in a perfectly sound\nmind, while the latter part is the essential of the whole definition.\n\nAs we have already pointed out, science and all researches have utterly\nfailed to furnish replies to all questions regarding the origin,\naim, plan, and final destiny of the universe and of humanity. Under\nsuch circumstances, the world around us, that which has preceded\nit, that which will follow it, as well as ourselves, necessarily\nremain mysteries. Can then any one who perceives or divines unknown,\nand to us now inexplicable, relations between phenomena and who\ndiscerns mysteries be regarded as a degenerate? All the scientific\nfacts of which we are now in possession were mysteries before they\nwere discovered, and the scientists who, guided by slight hints and\nsometimes by guesses, have unravelled the marvels of nature, could not\nsurely be put down as lunatics. It is therefore evident that the phrase\n\u201cdark power\u201d is a most essential part in Nordau\u2019s definition, and\nthat a man can behold mysteries, dwell on them, study them, sometimes\nunravel them, and remain a perfectly sane man, and that he only who is\nmystical and deals with mysteries in an irrational way is a degenerate.\n\nNordau says as much in his illustration of the peasant who is a\nmystic in his religion and in his belief in the weather-witch, but a\nmatter-of-fact man in his farming and in his business. But he is not so\nlenient to the exponents of the mystic school in art and literature.\nWith regard to these, he is rather prone to determine the state of\ntheir mind according to that part of a quotation from Morel which he\nhas italicised in his book, \u201c_a morbid deviation from an original\ntype_.\u201d The word morbid alone would have sufficed, but he seems to\nattach more importance to the other part of the sentence and to regard\nall who deviate from an original type as degenerate. He does not allow\nfor extenuating circumstances in the authors and artists as he does in\nthe case of the peasant. If he did, he could not class any of these, or\ntheir admirers, among the degenerates, unless he could also prove that\nthey were irrational in their daily life and their business relations.\n\nHe acknowledges that the emotional nature of man has played a more\nimportant part in the world than his intellect, and yet he seems\nto have before his eyes an original type consisting exclusively\nof intellect and devoid of emotions. If man\u2019s destiny, his moral\ncondition, his education, his happiness, and his usefulness in the\nworld, were to be determined chiefly by his intellectual power, the\nprogress of the race would have been infinitely more slow than it has\nbeen, and the bulk of individuals now alive would be far less removed\nfrom the animal than they are.\n\nIt might be contended that, if not all, at least a large number of\nreligions have brought with them many evils, but, taking a broad view\nof the work accomplished by them in comparison, not with what they\nwould have done had they been more perfect, but with that state which\nwould have prevailed had they never existed, no unprejudiced historian\nwill deny that civilization and the progress of our race have been\nconsiderably accelerated through the influence of religions.\n\nNo religion is based on logic, and hardly ever were religious precepts\nand dogmas accepted exclusively on intellectual grounds. Faith and\nreasoning, considerably modified by emotion, have always formed the\nbasis of religious beliefs.\n\nNot only in connection with religious matters, but in every event and\nevery development in human affairs, emotion has played an active and\nprominent part. Such feelings as love, friendship, ambition, lust,\ngratitude, hatred, revengefulness, patriotism, loyalty, chivalry, etc.,\nare the great motive powers in the human drama, and when the intellect\nsteps in it is as their counsellor and their servant.\n\nIt is therefore legitimate and reasonable for those who wish to sway\nhuman beings, who wish to educate them, elevate them, to address\nthemselves to their emotional nature. In the position in which man\nis placed\u2014living on a cosmic grain of sand, moving in space by an\ninexplicable power at an inconceivable speed, without knowing who he is\nand why he is\u2014the mystical must perforce have a great attraction for\nhim. To be easily impressed by the mystical is therefore one of his\nnatural conditions, be it good, bad, or indifferent. When the emotional\nnature of human beings is appealed to it is as rational for artists and\npoets to address themselves to the love of the mystical as to the love\nof the beautiful, and therefore there should be a legitimate place for\nmysticism in art and poetry.\n\nIt is almost inconceivable that an educated, well-balanced mind\nshould never dwell on those immensities still unexplored, and the\ninnumerable enigmas still unsolved or insoluble, and content itself\nwith lingering over those comparatively insignificant truths which\nscience so far has revealed. To what an extent a man remains satisfied\nwith quasi-explanations of scientific research depends on the strength\nof his imagination. It is pardonable if alienists should look upon\nimagination as a doubtful blessing; but though it may appear a\ndangerous gift in their patients, there can be little doubt that it is\nan indispensable attribute to a well-equipped mind. It is the mental\nfaculty which most distinguishes man from the animals\u2014the one on which\nhe could with the greatest appearance of legitimacy base his claim to\ndivine origin. Dogs may dream and horses may see ghosts, but their\nhallucinations are vastly different from the imagination of man, which\nallows him to receive and retain almost any number of presentations,\nto elaborate them into new combinations, thus reconstructing pictures\nof the past and daring conceptions of the future, capable of easy\nrealization. A powerful imagination is essential not only to the\npoet and the artist, but to the engineer, the mechanician, the\nstatesman,\u2014in fact, to all who set themselves a practical task or a\ndistinct ideal.\n\nIt is the imaginative strength of the scientist which renders him\na pioneer and a discoverer, and without it he is to his science\nwhat the performer of music who cannot compose is to music. From\neveryday experience we are justified in believing that the cramming\nof the memory, much reading for examinations or other purposes,\nand a developed habit of relying on authorities tend to weaken the\nimagination in a man. This seems to be confirmed by the theory of\npsychologists: that desuetude of a faculty tends to its decay; and\nmight well be the explanation of the often-confirmed fact that great\ndiscoverers and inventors have seldom emerged from the ranks of the\nomnivorous readers of the universities.\n\nIn the same manner we may explain what we have before called the\nscientific superstition discernible in so many scientists. The more\nthey are satisfied with their systems, the more they take nomenclature\nand classification for adequate explanation, the less they are\nattracted by the spheres into which science has not penetrated or\ncannot penetrate. There is this similarity between the scientifically\nsuperstitious and the theologically superstitious\u2014that they both\nbelieve that they have explained all, and they thereby place themselves\nbeyond the possibility of being right; for the mass of unexpected\nfacts revealed by science, eclipsing as they do the wildest flight of\nthe imagination, renders it possible for any man to be right in his\nspeculations on the secrets of the universe save those men who say that\nthey know all.\n\nIt is therefore not surprising that a scientist by erudition, and\nespecially an alienist, who, by dint of studying the mechanism which\nconnects what some call the soul, and others designate as the trinity\nof the consciousness, the judgment, and the will, with the body, has\npersuaded himself that there is nothing beyond nerves, cells and the\ngray matter, should look with contempt on imagination, and yet more\nso on the love of the mystical, and that his ideal man, his \u201coriginal\ntype,\u201d should possess so little imagination as to remain unaffected by\nthe mystical.\n\nLack of information and of observation has caused the multitude to\nregard a great number of men\u2014distinguished in the eyes of the world\nexclusively by their intellectual powers\u2014as non-mystics to such a\ndegree as to class them as atheists. The majority of such men, though\ndistinctly at variance with the dogmas and views of established sects,\nhave been and are, in their inner consciousness, both mystics and\nreligionists. When in public they have seemingly attacked religion\nand mysticism, they have in reality only attacked churches and\nsuperstition. In the judgment of a great many intelligent men the\ncontroversy between Professor Huxley and Dr. Martineau goes far to\nconfirm this view. When humanity, including scientists, learns to\ndistinguish between religion and churches, it will be understood that\nalmost all men in the past and present who have deservedly been called\ngreat, have been religionists, and therefore mystics.\n\nLet us instance Faraday. He belonged all his life to a sect which must\nbe classed among the mystics, and he died a believer in its creed.\nAre we then to class this keen observer, accurate investigator, and\nbrilliant logician, this daring pioneer of science, this ingenious\nunraveller of nature\u2019s secrets, among the degenerates? If we do, where\nshould we class average scientists, including Nordau? Or should we\nplace ourselves in the position of the common-sense German Philistine,\nand declare that mysticism is not mysticism when it takes the shape of\nthe belief of a sect tolerated by the police?\n\nBut is not Faraday\u2019s mysticism perfectly compatible with a sound mind?\nHe was one of those scientists with unclouded reasoning powers, whose\nknowledge\u2014gained by investigation, not from authorities\u2014had taught him\nhow little he knew of the great mysteries of creation. He recognised\nthat our emotional cravings cannot be satisfied by science in its\npresent stage, but only by emotional realization. Hence his religious\nattitude towards the great mysterious power of which he knew nothing,\nbut whose work became more and more manifest as his investigation\nproceeded. What wiser course could a man adopt, who was so capable\nof distinguishing essence from form, than to give that form to his\nreligion which had gratified his emotional nature as a child?\n\nIf sound minds may be mystically inclined, if our emotional nature can\nbe reached by mysticism in poetry and art, and if our emotions are\nacknowledged to be receptive to elevating and pleasing impressions,\nthe pre-Raphaelites could not all have been as degenerate as Nordau\nwould have us believe. They were, no doubt, emotionalists, mystics,\nand even symbolists, and they frankly claimed the right to be regarded\nas such. They considered themselves as having a mission, and the fact\nthat a man throws himself heart and soul into his mission is no sign of\ndegeneration.\n\nNow, there are walks in life, callings, missions, which involve no risk\nto those who undertake them; there are others that involve great risks.\n\nSome callings expose a man to bodily harm, others to mental harm.\nNothing could be more uncharitable and cruel than to revile a man,\nto attack his reputation, to wound his feelings, and to lower his\nself-esteem, because he returns maimed and invalided after having\nfought the good fight.\n\nA shopkeeper, a shoemaker, an author of sensational books, runs but\nlittle risk of damaging either his body or his mind. The sailor, the\nminer, the leader of a revolution, exposes himself to great bodily\ndanger. The man who acquires a vast erudition may dull his imagination\nand his judgment; the man who strains his brain to the utmost, who,\nperhaps, overstrains it, in the solution of difficult problems, the\nman whose mission lies in the domain of the emotions, exposes his mind\nto injury. If there be truth in this, mysticism in poetry and art may\ncause degeneration in the poet\u2019s or the artist\u2019s mind, especially if it\nbe a weak one; but to conclude from this that mysticism in art springs\nfrom diseased minds is to confound cause with effect.\n\nIf we accept Nordau\u2019s Philistine definition of art and his views as\nto its mission, mysticism would have no place in art or in poetry.\nHe would certainly exclude it, but in doing so he would contradict\nhimself glaringly. We have already complained that he does not explain\nhis standards, and that he does not give his ideals. But from his work\nbefore us, it is evident that the standard by which he would measure\npoetry is the work of Goethe and Shakespeare, especially the former.\nGoethe owes his fame largely to his _Faust_\u2014a mystical work if ever\nthere was one. The prologue is religious mysticism, the first part is\ndiabolism, the second part is arch-mysticism, which so far has resisted\nall attempts at interpretation. In the same manner _Hamlet_, _Macbeth_,\nand other plays of Shakespeare derive their great charm and their\nartistic value largely from mysticism.\n\nAll this however does not prove that either irrational or dishonest\nmysticism is acceptable, and much that Nordau says regarding\npre-Raphaelitism should be taken to heart by the camp-followers of\nthe movement. In this term we include, of course, those painters\nwho, unable to draw and paint, try to force their pictures upon the\nmarket by sheer bounce; and empty-headed critics who insolently\nassume a mental, or, as they would call it, a spiritual, superiority\nby writing obscure, unintelligible rigmaroles in praise of pictures\nwhich attract attention by means of nought but their eccentricity.\nThis class of people cannot be considered as representing the\npre-Raphaelite movement, nor can they be called degenerate in the\nsense Nordau means, for there is a method in their degeneracy which\nyields pounds, shillings, and pence. We also include in this category\na class of people whose conceit may border on degeneracy, and who\nbelieve that any one who cannot draw and paint is qualified for a\npre-Raphaelite painter, and who sincerely assume and enjoy the position\nas misunderstood geniuses.\n\nAs to the crowds in the exhibitions that gather before an\nincomprehensible eccentricity made conspicuous by the log-rolling\nprocess, they surely do not all deserve the epithet of degenerates.\nMany are drawn there by sheer curiosity; others damn with faint praise,\nin order to escape the wrath of the fanatic. There are also, of\ncourse, many who, for the purpose of giving themselves airs, admire\ntraits of beauty which they really fail to see. The behaviour of these\nhypocritical \u00e6sthetes is, of course, deplorable, but they yield to a\nweakness not confined to the end of our century. Andersen\u2019s story of\nthe king\u2019s clothes, inspired by a very old German tale, is one of many\nevidences of the antiquity of such folly.\n\nThe sincere pre-Raphaelites deserve the sympathy of every thinking man,\nthough they may be guilty of many imperfections. According to Nordau,\nthe mission of the painter is to serve as a vehicle of beautiful\nimpressions to the public. A man who fulfilled this mission might\nindeed be called an artist, and his painting might be the limits of\npainting as such. But this does not prevent a picture from containing\na story, a moral, or the expression of an emotion, if the painter be a\ngood story-teller, a true poet, and a sound teacher. If a work of art\ncan thus fulfil two high purposes instead of one, everybody is a gainer\nby it, and the fact that it is the embodiment of two arts instead of\none cannot reasonably be made an objection. The artist who succeeds in\nthus blending two arts should surely not be called a degenerate.\n\nRuskin did not, as Nordau confesses, advocate any neglect in the art\nof painting as such, but he warned artists not to waste their time on\nunworthy subjects. He is a philanthropist as well as a writer on art,\nand feels aggrieved when the artist neglects so good an opportunity of\nteaching as a well-executed painting offers, and yet more when he sees\nart abased in order to gratify sensuality or morbid cravings for the\nhorrible.\n\nThat Ruskin did not so absolutely disregard beautiful pictures which\nhave no story to tell and no teaching to impart becomes incontestable\nwhen we remember his panegyrics of Turner.\n\nVictor Hugo in his _Notre Dame de Paris_ makes Claude Frollo say,\nwhen he has a book in his hand and the old cathedral before him, that\nthe one will kill the other, meaning, of course, that books were\npredestined to supersede symbolism in buildings and other arts. Nordau\ntakes for granted that this has already been done. He sees no good\nin works of art giving expression to ideas and emotions which could\nso much better be described and more clearly defined in books. But\nis there not a great inconsistency in first admitting that art keeps\nwithin its rational limit when it presents the beauties of nature to\nthe public in such a manner as to make them more evident, which is\nequal to teaching that nature is beautiful, and then to say that art\noversteps its limits when it teaches, or attempts to teach, anything\nelse?\n\nIf we survey all the means available to humanity for the conveyance\nof thoughts and emotions, they present a scale which begins by speech\nand ends with music. Though it must be acknowledged that speech only\nwith difficulty lends itself to the expression of one or a considerable\nnumber of interdependent and intertangent complex ideas perfectly\nclear in a sound mind, it is however the best means we possess for\nlucid expression. Written prose has the same merit as speech, and may\nbe used to express the driest mathematical facts, as well as the most\npoetical imaginings. Verse, we think it will be generally allowed,\nis better calculated to convey poetical ideas and expressions, as it\nadmits of greater liberty, more stirring language, bolder metaphors,\nand because rhythm and rhyme, in virtue of their musical qualities,\nappeal to the imagination and stir the emotions.\n\nWhen to poetry melody is added, it becomes song, a mode of expression\nwhich appeals fully as much to our emotional nature as to our\nintellect. When instrumental music is added to song, to evoke emotion\nbecomes the cardinal object, and intellect receives hardly any\nimpression. Music without words is the mode of conveying emotions\u2014and\npossibly ideas, too subtle, so to say, too spiritual to be analysed by\nthe intellect\u2014in so distinct a way that the emotions of the composer,\nand may be of the performer, are faithfully reproduced in the hearers.\nA mutual understanding is thus established between them as clearly as\nany understanding arrived at through exhaustive verbal explanation.\n\nScientists have endeavoured to explain on materialist lines the charm\nexercised by music over us, but their explanations obviously never\ntouch more than the mechanical motion of the sound-waves and the\nreceptive mechanism of the ear and the brain. Their dogmatizing is\nmoreover so dry, halting, and one-sided as to convince musical people\nthat their attempt at explanation is hopeless. Music belongs to the\nsphere of emotions, which lie beyond the ken of science, and will be as\nlong as scientific progression is hampered by the materialist bias.\n\nAnd yet the most unimaginative scientist will not deny that all the\nmethods of conveying ideas and emotions enumerated in the above scale,\nincluding instrumental music, are legitimate arts. Why then should\nthere not be the same latitude allowed to the arts appealing to us\nthrough the sight as to those appealing to us through the hearing? If\nthe architect, sculptor, or painter, or two of them, or even three of\nthem, combined in collaboration, wishing to convey an impression, or\nto evoke an emotion, why should they not be allowed to do so by any\nof the means which fall within their sphere? If they should wish to\nevoke emotions similar to those evoked by music, and they can do so by\nchoosing a certain subject, by introducing certain symbols, or even by\nrecalling sentiments of the past\u2014the time of our first love, our youth,\nor even our childhood,\u2014why should they not be free to do so?\n\nThe pre-Raphaelites claim the freedom to thus expand the scope of\npictorial art, to sanctify it, and to make it appeal to the inmost\nrecesses of our emotional nature; and as the movement was started at\na time when art was in decadence and tended to become subservient,\nabroad to pruriency, and at home, to abominable Philistinism, the\npre-Raphaelites deserve a better treatment than they have received at\nthe hands of Nordau.\n\nThat they should commit mistakes was inevitable. It is probable that\nthey had not realized completely to themselves the exact results to be\naimed at. Like the composer of music, they wished to convey to others\nsuch of their own emotions as they deemed legitimate, beautiful, and\nennobling, and had to grope in the dark, or to trust to momentary\ninspiration, for the means. Being, and wishing to be emotional, they\nmay have neglected their intellectual powers, forgetting that even\nwhen emotion reigns supreme it can express itself truly only by the\naid of intelligence. Vivid emotions and powerful imaginations are not\nin themselves stigmata of degeneration, but rather the signs of a rich\nmind, so long as they remain under the control of the intellect. It is\nonly when they run riot, unheeding the criticism of intellect, that the\nbalance of the mind is imperilled.\n\nIn their desire to emphasize the spiritual meaning and the emotional\nnature of their works, the pre-Raphaelites may have committed the\nmistake of neglecting execution, truthfulness to nature, and the laws\nof optics. Finding pictures appreciated by the public in virtue of the\nsubject and the conception, despite faulty treatment, many of them no\ndoubt have been induced to realize their ideas and emotions on canvas\nbefore they had sufficiently trained their eye and their hand.\n\nEvery educated Englishman will understand that Nordau somewhat distorts\nfacts and conveys wrong impressions in the account he gives of the\nmovement. Though the pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was dissolved, the\nmovement has not been so devoid of results as he insinuates. Though the\nfirst exhibition of the Brotherhood was also the last one, pictures\nby the same artist have been constantly exhibited, and some of them\nhave fetched fabulous prices. He says that Millais, amongst others,\nhas retained that characteristic of the pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood\nconsisting of minuteness in details, draperies, and backgrounds. Any\none who has seen Millais\u2019 striking portraits, his \u201cCherry Ripe,\u201d\n\u201cBubbles,\u201d \u201cCaller Herrings,\u201d and other pictures could not possibly\nmake such an assertion. We must, of course, allow for the circumstance\nthat Nordau\u2019s knowledge of the pictures he criticises is second-hand.\n\nIt is evident that he has not seen Millais\u2019 latest pictures. Had he\ndone so, he would not have jeopardized his whole system of reasoning\nby holding Millais up as an example of degeneration. Here, as in many\nother cases, Nordau, while exhibiting an enormous erudition, reveals a\nremarkable want of logic. To call Millais degenerate is a desperate way\nout of a dilemma in which he has landed himself by asserting, on the\none hand, that those who paint pictures such as Millais painted years\nago are people with degenerate brains, and, on the other, that people\nwho produce pictures such as Millais paints now are people of sound\nmind. If degeneration is the first step towards a high, normal, and\nsound development, Nordau has been guilty of much ado about nothing.\n\nHad he ever beheld Holman Hunt\u2019s \u201cShadow of the Cross\u201d even in an\nengraving, he could not in his description of it have committed the\nmistakes he has unless his mind is impervious to pictorial impressions.\nHe says that \u201cthe shadow of his (Christ\u2019s) body falling on the ground\nshows the form of a cross.\u201d This is not true. The shadow of Christ\u2019s\nbody falls on the wall, where a tool shelf and suspended tools simulate\na cross. Nordau\u2019s erroneous description will certainly prejudice those\nwho have not seen the picture against Holman Hunt.\n\nIt is natural that the materialist, the pseudo-scientifically\nsuperstitious, and the Philistine tendencies of our age, so eminently\nembodied in the mind of Nordau, and against which the pre-Raphaelite\nschool is a protest, should militate against a fair appreciation of the\ntentative departure of these innovators.\n\nThe essence of their mysticism and their symbolism is their belief\nin what, for lack of a better term, has been called their spiritual\nlife\u2014the belief that the mind is not a condition of matter, but\nthat our thinking _Ego_ might have existed before it was incarnated,\nand that it will live after our body has decayed. Could our earthly\nexistence be proved finite with certainty, could any future existence\nbe proved a vain dream, incompatible with reason, then indeed would\npre-Raphaelitism be the beginning of folly, as, in fact, would most of\nthe things which now tend to lighten and beautify our lives. We shall\nnot here endeavour to determine the five-thousand-year-old discussion\nregarding eternal life. We shall simply point out that the proofs on\nwhich the so-called materialists base their conclusions are not so\nabsolutely convincing as to stigmatize their opponents as lunatics.\n\nAny one who has glanced at the development of science from old times\nup to the present is well aware of that weakness in the mind of\nscientists\u2014especially the non-pioneer scientists\u2014which induces them\nto believe that the conclusions they have arrived at, generally in\nopposition to predecessors, are the whole truth and nothing but the\ntruth. For thousands of years it has been the same. For each step\nthat science has climbed upwards, its votaries, with a few brilliant\nexceptions, have believed themselves to be at the top, and have with\nscorn rejected, as sheer folly, any suggestion that the step on which\nthey stand is rotten and that there are sounder steps higher up. The\nscientists of other days in their turn looked upon Columbus, Galileo,\nand Tycho Brahe as fools. A hundred years ago the scientists would have\nlaughed to scorn any one who had told them that their senses deceived\nthem with regard to light, darkness, colours, silence and sound,\nand that all these presentations received by our senses were simply\nmovement or manifestations of energy. The theory which regarded atoms\nas minute subdivisions of matter is quite a modern dogma, and yet it is\nalready tottering to its fall. More rational scientists already speak\nof atoms as centres of force, an expression which twenty years ago was\nregarded as rank heresy. If the theory that atoms are centres of force\nis accepted, with all its consequences, science is on the threshold of\na new departure which may cause the materialists to look small indeed;\nfor if what to our senses appears as matter is a condition of force,\ninstead of force being a condition of matter, a vista entirely opposite\nto that of the materialists is open to science\u2014a vista disclosing\npossibilities before which we might well stand in awe.\n\nThough it is incontestable that invention and discovery have been\nenormously accelerated by often apparently wild suggestions by the\nimagination, by emotion, and by instinct, it is especially such\nsuggestions which are visited by the most furious onslaughts on the\npart of the superstitious scientists. When these reject as utter folly\nimaginings prompted by faith or any other emotions, it is because such\nsuggestions are not only entirely out of harmony with the scientific\nideas of the moment, but because they appear so extraordinary, so\nutterly destructive to the views familiar to them. They would be\nless positive in face of suggestions and speculations justified by\nemotion, if they did not constantly forget that every scientific\ndiscovery reveals facts which are not only diametrically opposed to\nopinions previously held, but also so marvellous as to baffle human\nunderstanding. Bearing recent scientific discovery in mind, no one\nwill deny the folly of the man who a hundred years ago would have\nprophetically declared: \u201cWhat we now have proved true and reasonable\nwill in a hundred years be proved error and folly, and what to us now\nappears as sheer madness and rank impossibility will then be scientific\ntruth.\u201d\n\nAny contemporary scientist, unaffected by scientific superstition,\nwould unhesitatingly acknowledge the probability of present scientific\ndogmas being declared errors, and that what would now appear as the\nhallucinations of an overheated imagination may become scientific truth\na century hence.\n\nThough the narrow-minded scientist who takes up his stand on the so\nfar explored speck of the universe has no right to blame the artist or\npoet who, guided by emotion and faith, plunges his imagination into\nthe surrounding abyss of the mystical, which no well-balanced mind\ncan ignore, it would be both unjust and absurd to blame the prosaic\nand plodding scientist who concentrates his whole mind on scientific\ndetails, and, to use a happy metaphor of Nordau himself, is building a\nbridge, arch by arch, out into the unknown. It is good that the Alpine\nclimber should concentrate his attention on the steps he hews in the\nice and the safe resting-point he can find for his feet, and not allow\nhis mind to wander in the dark precipice below him or among the lofty\npeaks he hopes to reach. Man being two personalities, one emotional,\nthe other intellectual, stands in need of the services of both the\nlogical scientist and the emotional artist and poet.\n\nOnce it has been recognised that the emotions may be conveyed by\npictorial art, we cannot quarrel with the _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ of the\npre-Raphaelites, though we might disagree with them as to the means\nthey are using. They can however justly demand that those who criticise\ntheir means of expression should show the possibility of better ones.\nHolman Hunt has aimed at evoking by his pictures a feeling of respect\nand admiration for religion, and in many cases has succeeded; and\nthe means he has employed are a reverential treatment, a style of\nold associated with religious representations and suggestions of the\nsupernatural. Burne Jones, whose object seems to be to emphasize the\nhigher significance of our spiritual being over our bodily, does so\nby giving us pictures of maidens whose beauty is of a kind devoid of\nall those attractions which coquetry, roguishness, animal spirits,\nand exuberance of health may confer. Their vacant and inward look\nsuggests a contemplative mood and a yearning to see the invisible. As\nif to still further quicken the sluggish imagination of the masses, he\ncloaks his figures in draperies and surrounds them by objects which of\nold have been used in representing holy people. He comes as near as\npossible to the representation of wingless angels, without presenting\nanything that could not be seen in reality.\n\nSuch pictures may not appeal to everybody, but we have overwhelming\nevidence that they do appeal to a great number; and if the belief\nin a superiority over animals, in a spiritual personality, in a\nresponsibility for our development, and in a future life contributes\nto our happiness and exercises an ennobling influence on our race, the\npictures of Burne Jones cannot be the work of a degenerate aiming at\nthe degeneration of others.\n\nWhat by many is considered Rossetti\u2019s masterpiece, \u201cDante\u2019s Dream,\u201d\nwould by a painter, in his capacity of craftsman, be found to contain\nmany defects, and only one great merit\u2014exquisite colouring. The\nconception is eccentric, the surroundings are symbolic and mystical,\nand the anatomy is incorrect. There are faults of perspective, some\nof them glaring. For instance, the left shoulder of the angel of\nlove who stands on the left hand of Beatrice, facing her and bending\nover her, is partly hidden by Beatrice\u2019s right shoulder, which could\nnot be possible in reality unless the two figures had only two\ndimensions\u2014height and breadth, with no thickness. And yet this picture\nhas been bought by the Corporation of Liverpool for a large sum, and is\nconsidered as a thing of joy and beauty by a mass of people among whom\nNordau could detect but a few with malformations of the heads and the\nears, and who in the whole of their life have given abundant proof of\npractical rationalism far greater even than that of the superstitious\npeasant he instances as having a sound mind.\n\nThe charm of the picture does not lie in the execution, but in the\nconception. It is probable that it evokes exactly the same emotion felt\nby Rossetti while painting it. The subject being a dream, the many\nsymbols tend to throw the spectator into the mood in which the picture\nshould be contemplated. There is an atmosphere of Sabbath\u2014presentiment\nof bliss\u2014which is produced by the introduction of such presentations\nwhich in our youth or childhood have been associated with that day.\nThe artist has succeeded in intensifying the belief in the sacredness\nof love and the consolations which, amid the troubles of life, may be\ndrawn from the faith in a spiritual existence.\n\nThe conceiving and representing of pictures like this, the outcome of\nintense emotion, might well endanger the balance of the painter\u2019s mind,\nbut the soothing influence they exercise on the spectator would surely\nassuage rather than excite any restless mind which, deprived of a\nprofound philosophy and a far-reaching scientific knowledge, must needs\ncling to faith.\n\nThe painter who produces on the canvas a beautiful scene from nature,\nbeautiful flowers, or other beautiful objects, pleases and elevates\nthe beholders of the picture. Nordau admits as much. But he does not\nanalyse the methods by which this result is accomplished. He would\nprobably not deny that one of the feelings which such a picture calls\nforth is a sympathy with nature and the Creator, and that this sympathy\nfavours the conception of the distinct idea that the great power of the\nuniverse suggested by natural beauties\u2014as the painter is suggested by\nthe picture\u2014loves the beautiful, and consequently the good.\n\nThe signification of the pre-Raphaelites in the progress of art is\nthat they strive to teach, in the production of groups and figures,\nsimilar emotions and thoughts to those produced by the representation\nof natural beauties. They have therefore contributed considerably\nto the elevation of art so far as aims and subjects go. If they\nbelieve that a purpose can be attained only by the imitation of the\nunskilled pre-Raphaelite painters, by violating nature, by eliminating\nperspective, and by apotheosizing ugliness, they do not further that\nregeneration which we believe they are striving for. But there is every\nreason to hope that modern art will come out ennobled from the crisis\ninto which it has been plunged, and that rising painters will see their\nway to paint reverently and realize their noblest aims and highest\nideals, represented in naturally beautiful forms, painted with the\ngreatest skill of a painter proud of his craft.\n\nWhether this hope be realized or not, it seems to us that a\nregeneration of art would be impossible without the attempts at new\ndeparture which Nordau has mistaken for degeneration.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n_THE BANKRUPTCY OF SCIENCE_\n\n\nIn his chapter entitled \u201cSymbolism\u201d Nordau seeks confirmation for his\ntheory of degeneration in the tendency, more or less perceptible all\nthe world over, on the part of contemporary artists and poets, to\nhave recourse to symbols in giving expression to ideas and emotions\nimpossible to convey in ordinary language. Every one who has had to\ndo with intricate syntheses of ideas, even of the driest and the most\nclearly definable kind, is well aware that language often appears\ninadequate to convey such syntheses from one mind to another. How\nmuch more difficult then must it be to convey in exact language a\npresentation conjured up from the imagination, an artistic conception,\na poetical mood, a strong emotion, or a chord of emotions, to use an\nexpression that may in itself serve as an illustration. The use of\nsymbols, as we have just used the word chord, has not only enormously\nwidened the capability of language, but has rendered it far more lucid,\nlaconic, and agreeable.\n\nA modern orator, or writer, could not possibly dispense with symbols,\nfor without them his speeches or his books would be intensely wordy,\ntiresome, and difficult to comprehend. Language is constantly being\nenriched by new symbols, either invented and introduced by authors, or\ntaken from such literary works as have become classic. Often an author\ncreates a character or an idea which typifies characters and situations\nfrequently met with, and for which symbols have long been needed. Thus,\nfor instance, Andersen\u2019s _Ugly Duckling_ became a symbol largely used\nas soon as his fable was published, and when Ibsen\u2019s _Doll\u2019s House_ was\nplayed for the first time in London, one newspaper, which, by the way,\ntook Nordau\u2019s view of Ibsen and declared his characters impossible, in\nanother article, if we remember aright, on the subject of marriage,\nused with great effect Ibsen\u2019s Nora as a symbol.\n\nBut such symbols are as old as language, and the new tendency of\n_litt\u00e9rateurs_ who call themselves, or who are called, symbolists,\nis not to invent and to use symbols that stand for well-known and\nperfectly undisputed characters and situations, but such as represent\nnew ideas, difficult to define, or undefinable, because incomplete, and\nconcerning emotions. The same authors are also prone to use symbols\nfor things, beings, and powers, the existence of which has not been\nascertained by the senses, but simply guessed at, or evolved from\nconsciousness.\n\nMany such symbols were not symbols when first introduced into the\nlanguage, but nouns that stood for things, or beings, supposed to be\nperfectly real. Thus, for instance, the word \u201cdevil,\u201d which in olden\ntimes stood for a satanic majesty, adorned with horns and tail, has\nnow become a convenient symbol, a thing only too real, but covering\nsuch immense ground, and presenting such innumerable aspects, that a\nsymbol expressing the whole conception is extremely convenient. Nothing\nis commoner than to hear a clergyman use the words \u201cthe devil\u201d in his\nsermon, though it be part of his creed and of his teachings that God is\nso omnipresent throughout the universe that there is not a square inch\nfor a personal devil to place his foot on.\n\nIt is this kind of symbolism which Nordau is bent on crucifying as\ndegeneration. As we have already said, there is a general tendency\namong artists to indulge in it, in order to produce moods and suggest\nemotions. Thus, for example, in the picture spoken of in our last\nchapter, \u201cDante\u2019s Dream,\u201d an atmosphere of love is represented by red\nbirds, and sleep is represented by poppies strewn on the floor. In\nRossetti\u2019s picture Nordau would have taken objection to such symbols,\nthough he seems reconciled to the symbols used by Raphael and his\nschool, and would probably not object to those of German allegorical\npainters and sculptors.\n\nIt is significant that the symbolism which he most vehemently holds up\nas a stigma of degeneration, is that of the modern French poets who\nhave made religious symbolism their speciality. It is not difficult to\nsee why these have been chosen as the scapegoats for the symbolism of\nevery art and every country. It is true they boldly call themselves\nsymbolists. But this would not be enough to elicit from Nordau a\nchapter of forty-five pages. Besides calling themselves symbolists,\nthey have the audacity to be French. Their symbolism is religious, and,\nwhat is worse, is Roman Catholic, and, what is worst of all, it is\nantagonistic to science.\n\nThough the now prevailing love for symbols does not always manifest\nitself in a religious way, it is natural for it to find its widest\napplication in speeches and writings on religion. Religion avowedly\ndeals with things not of this earth, is based not on knowledge and\ninvestigation, but on faith, and appeals not to our intellect, but to\nour emotional nature.\n\nThe French symbolists have created greater sympathy with their\nreligious views than might have been expected in our rational times\nbecause, unlike the Catholic clergy of the past, they treat as symbols\nwhat before were considered as representations of actual facts. They\nare not orthodox; and if the Church of Rome is anxious, as it seems\nto be, to turn this neo-Catholicism into a means of resuming its\ninfluence, it can only do so by enormously modernizing its fundamental\nideas. It will be interesting to see whether the Church of Rome will\naccept the symbolists as co-operators, or finally spurn them as\nheretics.\n\nWhat especially rouses the animosity of Nordau against the symbolists\nis the fact that the new movement is based on the supposition that\nscience is bankrupt, or, in other words, that it has failed in all its\npromises to humanity; that it has usurped the throne of religion under\nfalse pretences; and that its incapacity to supplant religion has been\ndemonstrated by the latest scientific discoveries. According to the\nidea underlying the French symbolist movement, science has during the\npresent century aimed at the destruction of religion, and has caused\nreligion to be neglected, discredited, and scorned.\n\nSuch a movement founded on such premises and aiming at such aims must\nbe of the greatest interest to any man who watches attentively the\ndevelopment of our race. To study its true cause, its real nature, and\nits real aims should be the desire of every earnest investigator; and\nif Nordau falls back on obloquy, indelicate insinuations, and blunt\naccusations, after the fashion of the militant _literati_ of the past,\nthe reason of his animosity is easily explained.\n\nNordau, like many scientists before him and with him, has taken sides\nin the absurd fight\u2014the _querelle allemande_\u2014between science and\nreligion, which has done so much to discredit both. To the unprejudiced\nobserver, any scientist who joins in the fray is induced to do so\nby his inability to distinguish between religion and church, and\nconsequently to realize that the whole progress of science during the\npresent century has had the result, amongst many others, of justifying\nsuch an attitude of mind towards God, the original cause, universal\nenergy, or whatever scientists choose to call it, which religion\nimplies.\n\nWhoever distinguishes between church and religion will at once\nunderstand that an ascendency of religious views throughout the world\nmay be perfectly compatible with the decay of sectarian dogmas, and\nthat therefore many phenomena which appear to indicate the decay of\nreligious views\u2014such as church-going, for example\u2014may in reality mean a\ndeeper religious life. If we take a comprehensive view of that progress\nin religious views which has been accelerated by science, we shall find\nthat church-going, the rosary, and the images of the saints indicate\nthe preliminary stages of a religious evolution which in its later\ndevelopment requires truer expressions.\n\nSo long as we have such a number of sects and churches, many of which\ndiffer essentially, and all of which differ to some extent, it cannot\naffect any one\u2019s feelings to be told that church is not religion.\nIt is this truth that science has accentuated, and the inevitable\nconsequence has been that the churches, though they at first might\nhave vehemently opposed certain scientific facts, and yet more certain\nrash speculations founded on them, have afterwards quietly striven to\nmodify their views and their dogmas so that they should not clash with\nabsolute scientific truths. That many such attempts at reconciliation\nbetween science and churches have been feeble and absurd does not\ndisprove, but confirms, the existence of the above tendency. Though\nperhaps it would be difficult to give a true definition of religion\nas distinguished from church, the conception which every thinking man\nforms of it is probably clear enough to allow him to realize that some\nchurches are farther from the ideal than others.\n\nIf it be true that the progress of science has been instrumental in\nimpelling the development of churches in the direction of a future\nreligion of ideal beauty and ideal truth, and that such a religion must\nnecessarily be in complete harmony with scientific facts, then the\nanimosity of science and religion is to a sound mind incomprehensible.\n\nYet Nordau unhesitatingly takes for granted that religion and science\nare naturally antagonistic. He takes very seriously the assumption of\nthe French neo-Catholics that henceforth science will have to make\nroom for religion. Had he any sense of humour, he would not have thus\nbetrayed how _jalousie de m\u00e9tier_ animates him to no small extent. He\nmixes up science and the scientists in a most amusing manner when he\ncompares the neglected scientist with the idolized saint, and asks,\n\u201cWhat saintly legend is as beautiful as the life of an enquirer who\nspends his existence bending over the microscope?\u201d Does our alienist\naspire to go down to posterity with a halo around his head? He regrets\nthe good old time when the daily Press of that date said, \u201cWe live in\na scientific age,\u201d when \u201cthe news of the day reported the travels and\nthe marriages of scientists, the _feuilleton_ novels contained witty\nallusions to Darwin, etc.\u201d\n\nNordau completely denies that there is any foundation for the assertion\nof the French symbolists that science has become bankrupt\u2014that it has\nnot fulfilled its promises to humanity. In order to refute it, he gives\nus the long list of scientific achievements to which scientists who\nmilitate against religion have accustomed us, beginning with spectrum\nanalysis and finishing up with instantaneous photography. He demands\nfor science the respect and trust of humanity, not only on the ground\nof what science has accomplished, but also on the ground of what it\nwill accomplish.\n\nHis faith in his mission deserves sincere admiration, and proves him to\nbe one of those earnest enthusiasts who alone can advance humanity. But\nhe does not see that his prophecies regarding future achievements are\nnot science, but faith and religion\u2014based, it is true, on reasonable\ngrounds, but still faith and religion.\n\nNor does he see that his proud asseveration of the achievements of\nscience, and his prophecy with regard to its future, do not constitute\na refutation to the cry of the symbolists that science is bankrupt.\nThe promises which the symbolists refer to as being dishonoured by\nscience, are not of the kind that could possibly be redeemed by the\nachievements referred to in Nordau\u2019s splendid list. They allude to\npromises not really made by science, but by rash and prejudiced\nscientists. These have over and over again proclaimed that religion had\nbeen supplanted by science, and that science could, or else soon would,\nexplain all those mysteries which religion claimed to explain or to\nsymbolize, such as first causes, final aims, existence or non-existence\nbefore birth and after death, the origin of evil, the essence of\nmorality, and so on. Science, according to them, was not only to\nbring about perfect serenity in man\u2019s mind regarding himself and the\nuniverse, but to satisfy the mysterious longings and the uncontrollable\nemotions, either hereditary, or part of man\u2019s nature, which hitherto\nreligion alone had satisfied. Science was also to supply rational\nmotives for purity, morality, self-sacrifice, and all the virtues\nand exertions which are indispensable to the elevation of our race.\nFinally, science was to transform us into an ideal race, living in an\nideal manner, thus substituting a terrestrial heaven for humanity, for\nthe spiritual heaven which religion promised for the individual.\n\nNordau cannot blame the scientists who made these promises; for the\nwhole of his book shows that he is in entire sympathy with them.\n\nThere was a time when the educated world believed in the arrogant\npromises of the scientists; when it confidently expected that\nmysteries, so far unexplained, would be cleared up within a reasonable\ntime, and that systems and speculation, which were to take the place\nof religion, would gradually be so amended as to become capable of\nfulfilling so great an object.\n\nBut the rapid scientific discoveries which followed one upon each\nother, far from tending to fulfil the promises of the scientists, had\nthe effect of persuading the world that science was not going to keep\nany of these promises. For each mystery it unravelled revealed a series\nof new mysteries behind it, and the explanatory task of science grew\nwith its own progress. In fact, while the explanations increased by\nsimple arithmetical progression, the mysteries rose up in geometrical\nprogression.\n\nAt the same time better schools, public lectures, and innumerable\nperiodicals initiated the masses into the secrets of the scientific\nfreemasonry, and people began to perceive that what they, in their\nawe of science, believed to be perfect knowledge of the very essence\nof the world-phenomenon was only a series of acute observations, an\nintelligent classification, backed by arbitrary speculations and the\nsuperstitious faith in the omnipotence of science, culminating simply\nin a barren religion of humanity.\n\nAs to eternity and infinity of space, all that science could do\nwas to tell the masses not to trouble their heads about them; as\nto causality, they were asked to regard it simply as \u201ca form of\nthought which had nothing to do with the phenomena.\u201d As to morality,\nthe religion of humanity seemed extremely untrustworthy: for the\nremoval of all personal responsibility, and the certainty of complete\nannihilation after death, seemed to give the strong-minded and clever\npeople the strongest possible inducement to make their fellow-beings\ntools for their own happiness. The promised earthly paradise was not\nonly thousands of years ahead in time, but was to be constituted on\nprinciples which even a superficial knowledge of economy and sociology\nwas bound to expose as an Inferno.\n\nIt was natural then that a great number of people, unable to climb to\nthe height of abstract and unsatisfactory reasoning of the kind that\nthe scientists had attained to, and whose emotional nature utterly\nrebelled against a progression which was intended constantly to violate\ntheir best instincts, should spurn science, which offered them no other\ncompensation than freedom from personal responsibility.\n\nIt was not only the hollow arrogance of the scientists and the failure\nof science to fulfil the promises of its superstitious votaries which\nhad created disgust with scientific atheism: the practical results of\nthe anti-religious tendencies became alarmingly apparent; experience\nbegan to prove that the discarding of all personal responsibility did\nnot produce the _ultra_ man\u2014_der Uebermensch_\u2014of which the scientists\nclaimed to be the prototypes.\n\nMany of them had been in the habit of speaking scornfully of those\nselfish natures who live irreproachable lives, and who devote\nthemselves to the promotion of the good of their fellow-men under the\nimpression that in a future state they would reap their reward. The\natheist-scientist represented himself as a man of different metal: he\nwas fully as moral as the religionist; he spent his life in serving\nhumanity, well knowing that his self-control and self-sacrifice\nwould bring him no reward; he did his duty, not induced by any mean,\nreligious consideration, but because he was a perfect man.\n\nThe lesser mortals, those from whose ranks the symbolists are\nrecruited, began to entertain doubts of the infallibility of these\nfirst-fruits of the religion of humanity. The very arrogance of these\nperfect men told against them. If they disbelieved in the rewards of a\nfuture life, they were not averse to the rewards in this, and eagerly\naccepted the money and the distinction their works brought them. There\nwas especially this about them: they unhesitatingly attacked that\nwhich the masses could alone rely on for moral guidance, equanimity,\nconsolation, and encouragement\u2014religion\u2014while the religion of humanity\nwas thousands of years in the future, and thus left the people a prey\nto mental bewilderment, doubt, and unrestrained passions. The scientist\nstood accused of acting like a man depriving a cripple of his only\ncrutch, against the promise of supplying his remote descendants with\nbetter ones.\n\nBut atheism had a far worse effect on ordinary mortals, who had not\nto sustain a reputation as apostles of the new scientific creed.\nConvinced that no personal responsibility attached to them, and caring\nlittle for what would happen to the next generation, or still less to\ngenerations thousands of years hence, they tried to persuade themselves\nthat conscience was an inherited weakness, developed by evolution, or\na product of wrong religious teaching. Wishing to rise above such a\nweakness, they did their best to silence conscience, and to live for\nself-gratification. In this manner selfishness, if not Egomania, was\nstrongly developed.\n\nCapitalists and politicians strove to acquire wealth and power,\nregardless of other people\u2019s rights, of their own conscience, and of\ntheir sense of honour, so long as their dishonour was known only to\nthemselves. Society became frivolous, and exhibited the same stigmata\nof degeneration noticed before in decaying commonwealths. Art became\nlascivious and corrupting; literature became realistic and offensive.\nIn fact, a host of clever men who ought to have been benefactors of\ntheir race cared not to what extent they ruined and demoralized their\nfellow-beings so long as they safeguarded their own health, their own\nfuture, and their social position.\n\nThe working classes being told by men, far superior to them in\nintellect and education, that their only chance was in their lives here\non earth, and that death was annihilation, began to sympathize with\nviolent Nihilists and Anarchists, and were less averse to risk their\nlives, if it were only to avenge themselves on those who deprived them\nof their terrestrial happiness.\n\nBut it was not only in the effect on their fellow-beings that the\nneo-Catholics, the symbolists, and their sympathizers all over\nthe world beheld the results of scientific atheism. Many of these\nthemselves became \u201cfrightful examples\u201d of these results. Nordau commits\na great mistake in studying the French symbolists as authors and poets.\nIt is as children of their times that they should be studied. He looks\nupon them as causes of the symbolist movement, whereas we should\nhave regarded them as the indicators of a remarkable stage in the\ndevelopment of our race.\n\nIt was inevitable that the theories of the scientists should have been\naccepted more widely in France than in any other civilized country. In\nthe English-speaking countries the Churches and sects had not assumed\nthe same uncompromising attitude with regard to the medi\u00e6val doctrines\nas the Church of Rome. They had gradually receded from one contested\npoint after another and many of their old forms and texts were given\na more liberal interpretation. Urged on by the example of the Broad\nChurch, the Congregationalists, and especially by the Unitarians, the\nclergy and the ministers ceased their opposition to any established\nscientific facts, though they rejected scientific speculations. The\ninfluence of the scientists in the English-speaking countries tended\ntherefore to modernize religion, instead of bringing it into contempt.\n\nIn Germany, where the people are slow to oppose any authority, and\nwhere they are extremely shy of their real religious opinions,\nscientific atheism simply encouraged the free-thinkers existing there\nof old and induced a mass of young men to masquerade as free-thinkers\nwho in reality held no opinions at all, and who were destined to become\ndevout in their old age.\n\nIn Italy and Spain the teachings of the scientists only somewhat\nstrengthened the hands of the Liberals, but produced no effect on the\nUltramontanes. In Russia, where the nobility and the middle classes\nhad for a long time been free-thinkers, or perhaps non-thinkers, in\nregard to religious questions, the religion of humanity affected only\nthat portion of the people which was already under the influence of\nNihilism, and tended to render them more reckless.\n\nIn France however, and perhaps in such countries as are\ndirectly influenced by French views\u2014for instance, Belgium and\nSwitzerland,\u2014circumstances were different. The atheism which broke out\nwith the first French Revolution had begun to subside, the nobility\nand the upper classes were the allies of Rome partly by conviction\nand partly from policy. In the country districts the _cur\u00e9s_ had\nresumed their influence over the peasantry, but the labouring class\nin the towns was divided into two camps, the free-thinkers and the\nUltramontanes; and the difference between them was emphasized by the\ncircumstance that the Ultramontanes were generally conservative in\nsiding with the powers that be, while the free-thinkers were more or\nless extreme Republicans, Socialists, or Communists.\n\nSuch was the situation in France when the influence of the scientists\non religious opinion began to make itself felt there. The materialist\nviews were eagerly taken up by the Bohemians of Paris and by the\nextreme wing of the Republican Press. The upper classes read, or\nskimmed, the English scientists, and up to the beginning of the\nFranco-German war the German philosophers were much in vogue amongst\nthe upper classes and in literary circles. In this fashion the Church\nof Rome had to face an attack differing widely from the French\nRevolution. Then the corruption, and the siding of the Church with\nthose who were regarded as the enemies of the country, exposed it\nto open violence prompted by strongly roused passions. During the\nlatter days of the Second Empire it was assailed in its dogmas with\narms borrowed from scientific research and speculation. The latter\nattack was by far the more dangerous. The discontent with the Imperial\nGovernment did much to draw the urban working classes into the ranks\nof the free-thinkers, where the theories of the scientists confirmed\nthem in their new atheism. Parisian society had become atheistic, and\nthe whole male population of the middle class prided themselves on\ntheir freedom from all religious prejudices. What remained of religion\nin France was represented by the old nobility, who had a political\ninterest in being religious; by the peasants, who were supposed to be\ntoo stupid to grasp the new scientific truths; by old men, who had not\nthe courage to face the grave without the consolation of religion; and\nby the women, to whom, it was confessed even by the most debauched\n_rou\u00e9s_, religion gave an extra charm.\n\nWhen the Third Republic was launched it had a strong atheistic\ncharacter, and the working classes in all the cities, the sincere\nfree-thinkers, patriots, and philanthropists, hoped that under\na Republican form of government the religion of humanity of the\nscientists would at last have a fair trial. But they were destined to\nbitter disappointment. The new Republic turned out to be _bourgeois_\nin the worst sense of the word. Politics passed into a profession.\nPoliticians and administrators became corrupt. Scandals multiplied.\nEven the Press was unable to show clean hands. Wealth became\nall-powerful, and the plutocrats acquired an enormous influence which\nthey did not hesitate to use to their own advantage. Speculators\nand adventurers pulled the strings of the home, and especially of\nthe colonial, policy, and in order to further private interests the\nindebtedness of the State was carried to such a point as to threaten\nthe most gigantic financial catastrophe the world has ever witnessed.\nIn the meantime the working classes and even the agriculturists\nnaturally suffered from the result of a system of government which\ndisregarded their interests. The proletariat of the cities grew, labour\ntroubles became frequent, wages fell, and poverty rapidly increased.\n\nWhile this growing penury invaded the homes of the working and\nlower middle class of a nation which has only partially realized\nthe happiness and healthy influence flowing from decent and moral\nhomes, scientific atheism took possession of the minds of the people,\nespecially of the men. It urged them to make the most of their lives,\nand enticed them into a whirlpool of dissipation.\n\nScientific atheism was bound to produce a vast increase in immorality\nin a country like France, where the Church of Rome, in order to enhance\nits influence over the people, favours unhappy relations between the\nsexes. The clergy do all they can to estrange the sexes prior to\nmarriage, and thus prevent pure love and love-marriages, while they\nencourage _mariages de convenance_. They are animated no doubt by the\nbest intentions, but, living themselves in enforced celibacy, have no\nidea to what an extent they thus undermine the morality of the people.\n\nAs love counts for little in the tying of the matrimonial knot, and the\n_dot_ counts for much, French unendowed girls stand a poor chance of\never getting married. This exclusion of an enormous number of the best\nwomen from the marriage market explains, to a large extent, the many\nirregular households to be met with in France. The fact that lovable\nand high-souled women accept the position of mistresses has largely\ntended to multiply mock marriages. The refusal on the part of the\nChurch of Rome to permit divorce, and the lovelessness of the regular\nalliances, tend in the same direction. The sum total of all this is\nthat a majority of Frenchwomen have to choose between an unhappy\nmarried life without love, and an immoral one with it. Those who are\nforced into the former in a great many cases seek consolation in an\nillicit _liaison_; those who drift into the latter become debauched.\nWhile thus the young, respectable, and pure-minded girls are relegated\nto schools and nunneries and excluded from all association with\nyoung men, among these licentious pleasure often takes the place of\nromantic love. Hence physically and morally unhealthy lives, absence of\nhappiness, craving for excitement, morbid passions, pessimism, contempt\nfor life, depraved tastes, hysteria.\n\nScientific atheism had however only aggravated a state of things\ncreated by sacerdotal influence on social habits. But it was only\nnatural that a nation, so biassed in social questions as France, should\nascribe the decay of morality and of so many other virtues to the\nweakening of that influence which for centuries had proclaimed itself,\nand had been considered by the masses as the only check upon wickedness\namong great and small alike.\n\nHosts of young men who entered life with noble aspirations to fight for\nhigh ideals, soon perceived, when left to shift for themselves, that\nthe society around them irresistibly opposed the realization of their\nhopes. They found it difficult, almost impossible, to reconcile success\nwith self-esteem, love with morality, and their poetical aspirations\nwith their manner of living. Many, in despair of happiness and success,\nor in order to forget their crumbled illusions, threw themselves into\na feverish quest for excitement, in which health of body and mind were\njeopardized.\n\nAwakening to the full consciousness of the depth of their fall, they\ncould not fail to see that the social system under which they lived\nwas largely responsible for their miseries. In looking back over\ntheir wasted lives they saw nought but shattered hopes. What they had\nforfeited were a happy and vigorous youth, transports of romance, the\nlove of a pure-minded woman, a strong and active manhood, a chivalrous\nfight for the good, the pure, the true, and the beautiful, the respect\nof their fellow-men, an ideal home.\n\nThe social conditions which they held responsible for their miserable\ncareer, and even for the regret they experienced, could not be laid at\nthe door of an Emperor or a dynasty: for their country was governed by\nuniversal suffrage. Finding government, legislation, institutions, and\nsocial conditions vitiated, they had to blame Society. They found that\nSociety was atheistic, and was deprived of the only check and guide\nthat came within their ken\u2014religion. They were filled with an intense\nlonging to destroy the atheism which science had created, and to return\nto a belief which would re-endow Society with moral order, health,\nromance, love, purity, and beautiful emotions.\n\nScience was the enemy, as under the Empire the priest was the enemy.\nTo discredit it was the first essential step. When therefore the\nactual power of science, its actual possibilities, became popularized,\nand each successive scientific discovery rendered the prophecies of\nthe superstitious scientists more and more preposterous, the French\nsymbolists took up the cry that science was bankrupt.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\n_SYMBOLISM AND LOGIC_\n\n\nThe French symbolists, and all poets and artists who move in the\nworld of emotions, are invited by Nordau to \u201ctake their place at the\ntable of science, where there is room for all.\u201d Were they to accept\nthe invitation, how would the emotional nature of our race find\nexpression? Would it be possible, or wise, to ignore emotions in face\nof the fact that our lives are essentially emotional? Or does Nordau\npush his scientific superstition to such a point as to believe that\nhuman emotions can ever be investigated by means of the lancet, the\nmicroscope, and the thermometer? In spite of his sneer at Rossetti\u2019s\nremark regarding his indifference as to whether the sun turned round\nthe earth or the earth turned round the sun, he cannot fail to\nacknowledge that what humanity yearns for is beautiful and pleasing\nemotions, not scientific facts. The glorious sunshine, the balmy\nbreeze, the radiant flowers, the inscrutable attractions of woman, her\nlove, her esteem, her faith, the affection of children, the confidence\nof our fellow-beings, our trust in the good, our struggle against\nevil\u2014such are the elements of life and happiness. Science acquires all\nits importance from being the means by which beautiful and pleasing\nemotions are safeguarded, and unpleasant emotions are avoided. When\nscience mistakes its mission, when it attempts to distort and vilify\ntheir expressions, it has become unreal and fatal.\n\nNordau wishes us to regard science\u2014progressing as it has done by\nreplacing old errors of our senses by new errors of our senses\u2014as\nembodying all facts worth noticing, and to disregard emotions which are\neternally unchangeable.\n\nTo turn our back upon emotions and to take our place at the table of\nscience means to ignore all that is beautiful, lovable, ennobling, and\nhopeful, to shut our eyes to the charms of form, colour, motion, and\nour ears to music, and to concentrate our attention upon the repast\nspread on the table of science: the pleasure of discovering bacteria in\nhuman tissue, the curiosity of counting the throbs of a frog\u2019s heart\nafter being torn from the living body, the sensation of ascertaining\nthe effect of the gastric juices on the foot of a living rabbit\ninserted into a living dog\u2019s stomach.\n\nWe take no side in the question of vivisection, or any other scientific\nmethods, but without in the least minimizing the great services\nrendered, and to be rendered, by science to humanity, we must express\nour astonishment that any sound mind, knowing what scientific methods\nare, and must be, can seriously suggest that scientific investigation\nshould supersede art and poetry. If we believed in degeneration, such\nopinions would be the first examples of it we should quote.\n\nPoets and philosophers who deal with emotions, so to say with\nimmaterial phenomena, impalpable to every one of our senses, but\ndemonstrated as eternally real by their effects, must needs make use\nof symbols, or, to be more exact, of more symbols, vaguer symbols,\nand bolder symbols than those which naturally enter into language. To\ndeny them this right is equal to denying the mathematician the use\nof the letter _X_, which stands for unknown quantities, and which is\nhandled by him as dexterously as if it were the most familiar object\nin the world. If human beings were not allowed to speak about what\ntheir imagination conjures up, what their feelings prompt, and what\nirresistible instincts point to, they would be brought alarmingly near\nto the level of the beast.\n\nThe French symbolists being poets, might not have formulated into\ndistinct thoughts what we have said above, but they have certainly\nfelt it all, and much more. They have felt themselves surrounded by\nundefined and undefinable _X\u2019s_ of far greater moment to their lives,\nto their happiness, and to their best instincts, than all the known\nand half-known quantities of science. In attempting to give expression\nto their feelings and to their thoughts regarding the all-important\nunknown, and to evoke among their fellow-beings an interest in them,\nthey have found themselves justified in using any means, including\nsymbolism, for their purpose.\n\nNordau has entertained no such considerations in dealing with the\nFrench symbolists. In obedience to his professional prejudices, he\nlooks for no other causes, no other influences, than those that can be\nfound in the mechanism of their brains. This is all the more amazing\nas he over and over again recognises that external circumstances,\nconditions of life and habits, exercise a strong influence on the\nbrain, or, in other words, that the mechanism which connects the _Ego_\nwith matter may be influenced by the _Ego_. The result of his criticism\npresents therefore a want of fairness which to the English mind is\nespecially objectionable.\n\nThe manner in which he pries into the private life and antecedents\nof Paul Verlaine, and the indelicate manner in which he refers to\nthe personal appearance of the poet, impress us English people as so\nmany unfair means of giving plausibility to his conclusions. When a\nhunchback is good-humoured enough to make fun of his own deformity,\nthose of gentle feelings sympathize all the more with his misfortune,\nand become all the more anxious not to refer to it. When a poet, in\nhis love of truth and in his anxiety to rouse a certain emotion, makes\nconfessions, when he instances his own sad experiences and failings,\nwhen he, so to say, throws himself into the flames on the altar of\ntruth, we in England count it indelicate and unfair to base criticism\non facts thus revealed. Had Nordau read Verlaine\u2019s poetry with an\nunbiassed mind, he could not have failed to be struck by the extent to\nwhich the poet typifies the movement going on around him: his failings,\nhis errors, and, maybe, his bad habits\u2014all this is the fate of millions\nwho have been induced by the materialist tendencies of recent times\nto disregard personal responsibility, and who, after rejecting such\nguides as the nobler instincts of humanity had proffered, attempt to\nfollow the dictates of the lower instincts and animal impulses. His\nterrible remorse and despair, while he is still unmoved by religion,\nbear witness to aspirations which the materialist would fain deny.\nHis instinctive groping for the consolations of religion shows to\nwhat an extent he attributes his failings to an irreligious life, and\nthat he experiences within him yearnings for a happiness which the\ngratification of the senses, prompted by atheism, has never afforded\nhim.\n\nNordau would object to this expression\u2014the gratification of his senses\nprompted by atheism\u2014and would tell us that atheism ought to have\nimplanted into Verlaine the religion of humanity, and that he should\nhave sacrificed all his inclinations for the future happiness of his\nrace. But, surely, it would require a good dose of hypocrisy for a\nman, sincerely convinced that death puts him personally beyond any\nconsequences of his life, to persuade himself that he is practising\na life-long abnegation for the good of posterity. Is it not much\nmore likely that in so frank a nature as Verlaine\u2019s the disbelief in\npersonal responsibility would turn him into a devil-may-care vagabond\nuntil he learned in the school of experience the dangerous mistakes of\nmaterialism? Does Nordau not recognise the logic and the frankness in a\nyoung man who, in the exuberance of his animal life, when convinced of\npersonal irresponsibility, lives up to the motto of a \u201cshort life and a\nmerry one\u201d?\n\nThe need of love and affection\u2014a need generally so strongly felt by\nall poets\u2014Nordau is pleased to call eroticism, and when the poet finds\nthat he has profaned love, implanted in his soul by God, Nordau fancies\nhe has discovered in Verlaine that blending of religious fervour and\nmorbid eroticism which, when irrational, is a sign of lunacy.\n\nWhen Paul Verlaine invokes the Virgin Mary, a form of religious\nexpression which millions of sane people indulge in daily, Nordau at\nonce imagines he has discovered another trace of insanity. In order to\nshow that we are not unfair to our alienist, we will quote one of the\npoems of Verlaine he refers to, and the conclusions he draws from it,\u2014\n\n    Et comme j\u2019\u00e9tais faible, et bien m\u00e9chant encore,\n    Aux mains l\u00e2ches, les yeux \u00e9blouis des chemins,\n    Elle baissa mes yeux, et me joignis les mains,\n    Et m\u2019enseigna les mots par lesquels on adore.\n\n\u201cThe accents here quoted,\u201d says Nordau, \u201care well known to the clinics\nof psychiatry. We may compare them to the picture which Legrain gives\nof some of his patients. \u2018His speech continually reverts to God and the\nVirgin Mary, his cousin.\u2019 [The case in question is that of a degenerate\nsubject who was a tramway conductor.] \u2018Mystical ideas complete the\npicture. He talks of God, of heaven, crosses himself, kneels down, and\nsays that he is following the commandments of Christ.\u2019 [The subject\nunder observation is a day-labourer.] \u2018The devil will tempt me, but I\nsee God who guards me. I have asked of God that all people might be\nbeautiful,\u2019 etc.\u201d\n\nSo far Nordau.\n\nBecause a mad tramway conductor thinks he is cousin of the Virgin\nMary, Verlaine, who symbolizes in the Virgin Mary the power that draws\nhim towards the good, is on the road to madness! From this it follows\nthat, if a mad tramway conductor were to believe himself the cousin\nof Professor Lombroso, Nordau\u2019s quasi-worship of that authority would\nindicate degeneracy in Nordau\u2019s mind.\n\nOne of Nordau\u2019s characteristics is a weak or dull logical faculty,\noften to be observed in those who over-study for examination and in\nspecialists fanatically inclined. Without this peculiarity he could\nnot possibly have omitted to ask himself the question, \u201cHow about\nall other worshippers of Christ?\u201d when he concludes that Verlaine\u2019s\nmind is degenerate because he speaks devotedly of the Virgin Mary,\nwhile a lunatic labourer says that he follows the commandments of\nChrist. Nordau does not see that in this manner he completely gives\nhimself away, and lets us perceive that it is not the symbolist whom\nhe considered degenerate, but the whole Christian populations of the\nworld that have existed during two thousand years, and that still\nexist. Only his lack of a sense of the ridiculous, already pointed out,\nhas prevented him from remembering that the man in his cups considers\nhimself the only sober man of the company.\n\nThe verses which Verlaine has written in praise of a vagabond life\nNordau holds up as a sure sign of lurking lunacy. Are then all poets\nwho write in praise of a vagabond life degenerates? Is not the true\nsecret of Nordau\u2019s conclusion to be found in the fact that he entirely\nmisses the satire against our modern system which underlies Verlaine\u2019s\nand other writers\u2019 poems on this same subject? He does the same with\nregard to Verlaine\u2019s poem addressed to the demented king, Louis II. of\nBavaria. When we behold the follies of reigning sovereigns, who are\nsupposed to be in the full enjoyment of their faculties, making such\npoor use of their opportunities, degrading and ruining their people,\nrousing a hatred against themselves and their dynasty, or striving at\nlow _bourgeois_ aims, or even, to use Nordau\u2019s own expression, selling\ntheir royalty for a big cheque; when we read of the monarchs of the\npast, of their crimes and their meanesses, how can we wonder that the\nunfortunate King Louis should inspire sympathy in a poet, and that he\nshould satirize the so-called reasonable monarchs by eulogizing the\ndemented one?\n\nNordau makes much of that form of mental weakness which manifests\nitself in echolalia, or the mania of repeating for no reason the\nsame words and the same sentences. But to deny the poet, who aims at\nconveying an emotion and for that purpose wishes to create a certain\nmood in his listeners, the use of choruses, refrains, and cadenced\nrepetitions, he runs counter to the oldest literary tradition in the\nworld. He would surely not object to repetitions in verses intended to\nbe sung; and if we are right in placing poetry half way between speech\nand music in the list of the vehicles of thought, as we have done in a\nprevious chapter, euphonies, musicalities of words, and repetitions are\nboth permissible and rational.\n\nMany poetical emotions may be quickened by reminiscences from\nchildhood; and a style of writing, or the use of words or sounds,\nreminding us of early days, might be the most effective methods\nof expression. Thus, for instance, a drowsy repetition of\npleasant-sounding words may be very telling in a lullaby, even if\nthey convey no scientific meaning, or do not contribute to the sense\nof the poem, and so long as they do not distort it. The examples of\nrepetitions from degeneracy in Verlaine are chosen so unhappily\nas to place Nordau in the wrong and Verlaine in the right in the\njudgment of unbiassed persons; the one is a serenade, and the other\nis entitled \u201cChevaux du Bois,\u201d in which the sensation of a child on\na merry-go-round is suggested. Another is supposed to be sung by, or\nsuggests, Pierrot Gamin, that is a young idiot. When Verlaine wishes to\nqualify a noun in a manner which is difficult to express in ordinary\nadjectives, he, like millions of his fellows, has recourse to the\nmethod of giving a new, or symbolic, signification to an old adjective,\nand this, according to Nordau, is a sign of mental degeneration. To\nprove his case he quotes such terms as \u201ca narrow and vast affection,\u201d\n\u201ca slow landscape,\u201d \u201ca slack liqueur,\u201d \u201ca gilded perfume,\u201d \u201ca terse\ncontour,\u201d etc. He does not seem to know that the paucity of language\nrenders such expressions not only legitimate but extremely useful in\nmany professions and trades, let alone poetry. Has he never heard\nof a warm colour, a lively tint, a cold tone, etc.? Are the French\nwine-growers mad when they say that wine is heavy, light, full, dead,\nalive, slack, round, green, angular, smooth, velvety, etc.?\n\nWe are glad to see that he recognises Verlaine\u2019s ability as a poet and\ndoes not find fault with some of his poems. Thus he says of \u201cChanson\nd\u2019Automne\u201d that \u201cthere are few poems in French literature that can\nrival\u201d it. While rejoicing at the fairness that Nordau here displays,\nwe must however point out the eccentricity of his logic. He desires\nto warn us against degeneration, and therefore points to a poet\nwhose degeneracy has not prevented him from writing a masterpiece of\nliterature. It should also be noticed that the \u201cChanson d\u2019Automne,\u201d\nwhich meets with such ample praise from Nordau, is on the same theme\nwhich underlies other pieces of poetry quoted in his work as examples\nof legitimate and sane poetry. When he does intimate that a poet might\nburst into song over flowers, trees, books, and twittering birds, but\nnot over the sympathy he feels in his consciousness with the powers\nthat have called them forth, simply because science has not so far been\nable to analyse and classify those powers, he only shows that he is\nillogical enough to proffer his limited view of what is poetical as an\ninfallible standard of the poetry of the world.\n\nNordau blames Verlaine and other symbolists for dealing with moods\ninstead of with definite ideas. But is there a single poet in the\npast or the present who did not largely deal in moods, and who did\nnot labour to give the world an impression of his own feelings?\nNordau\u2019s ideal author\u2014Goethe\u2014has gone further. He wrote a whole novel,\n_Werther\u2019s Leiden_, which is little else than a lengthy description of\nhis hero\u2019s moods.\n\nAnother symbolist, Stephane Mallarm\u00e9, who in France as well as in\nEngland enjoys a reputation as a poet, or rather as an authority on\npoetry, is attacked by Nordau in a manner which suggests other motives\nthan fair criticism. He gibes at the symbolists and at all who consider\nMallarm\u00e9 a poet, because he has produced only a few original works and\ntranslations. As our alienist cannot very well put this down as a sign\nof degeneration, having treated those who write much as graphomaniacs,\nhe gives us no other reasons for placing Mallarm\u00e9 among the examples\nof degeneration than that he has \u201clong, pointed, faun-like ears,\u201d a\nfact which he seems not to have noticed personally but which he has\nobtained, like most of his facts, from a book.\n\nHe distinctly insinuates that the admiration for Mallarm\u00e9\u2019s poetical\ngift indicates degeneration, especially as Mallarm\u00e9 has written so\nlittle. We meet here again with a striking example of his curious\nlogic. He imagines that he strengthens his case by quoting from\nLessing, who in _Amelia Galotti_ makes Conti say that Raphael would\nhave been the greatest genius in painting, even if he had unfortunately\nbeen born without hands. From this, English readers who happen to know\nnothing of Lessing or Conti would conclude that either Lessing was\na lunatic or that his character, Conti, was mad. But neither is the\ncase, and the quotation consequently tells against Nordau. Whoever\nwould deny that a man cannot be a poet and an authority on poetry\nwithout publishing verse must attach an extremely narrow meaning to\nthe word poet. If Lessing, or Conti, means by the word painter, not\nthe craftsman, but the man with the painter\u2019s soul, the symbolist may\nsurely be allowed to call Mallarm\u00e9 a poet. Has Nordau never met with\nmute poets, blind painters, and deaf musicians? One of the greatest\nmusicians of the world composed marvellous music while stone-deaf.\nNow if we suppose that Beethoven had lost his hearing before he had\nmastered the technicalities of music, would he therefore not have\nremained a musician?\n\nNordau is very severe on several other symbolists and certainly does\nhis best to represent them in an unfavourable light. In order to show\nthat Charles Morice, the author of _La Litt\u00e9rature de tout \u00e0 l\u2019heure_\nis literally insane and a graphomaniac, he quotes Morice\u2019s rhapsodical\nconception of God, which he pretends to take as an exact definition in\norder to reduce it to twaddle. To any unprejudiced reader it is evident\nthat Morice intended to convey by this wild attempt at description how\nimpossible it is to define God. Nordau\u2019s prejudice against the French\nnation becomes palpable when speaking of the fact that the French\nlanguage lends itself badly to blank verse and that a freer treatment\nof it in French poetry is a comparatively modern departure which by\nother countries was taken long ago. He says: \u201cBut to any one but a\nFrenchman, they merely make themselves ridiculous when they trumpet\ntheir painful hobbling after the nations who are far in front of them,\nas an unheard-of discovery of new paths and opening up of new roads\nand as an advance inspired by the ideal into the dawn of the future.\u201d\nThis gratuitous insult of a whole nation gives us a vivid insight into\nthe working of his mind. He would not have penned a sentence of such\nbad taste, and so marked by the echolalia he condemns in others, had he\nnot been prompted by feelings stronger than his judgment.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\n_THE LIGHT OF RUSSIA_\n\n\nWith regard to the Russian novelist, Count Leo Tolstoi, Nordau pursues\nthe same mode of criticism as he employed against other writers. He\nalso aims at the same object, firstly, to show that authors suffer\nfrom mental aberration; and, secondly, that the public who read their\nbooks do not do so on account of their literary merit, but because the\nreaders are mentally afflicted in the same way as the authors.\n\nTo prove this against Tolstoi and his admirers is no light enterprise,\nand Nordau does not acquit himself of his self-imposed task without a\ngreat deal of shuffling.\n\nHe allows nothing for Tolstoi\u2019s surroundings, the social condition\nof the country in which he lives, and the life he has led, but lifts\nhim out of all that tends to interpret this ultra-Russian writer, and\nregards him as one who has evolved some extraordinary notions in a\nstudio far from his native land.\n\nHe who says Russia says a great deal: for the expression denotes a vast\nempire, consisting of many nationalities and races, held together\nby a strong pressure, which seems, like the gravitation of huge\nheavenly bodies, to be determined by the size of the body from which\nit emanates. The inclusion of so many elements does not prevent Russia\nfrom remaining a great and powerful State, provided its Government soon\nbecomes to some extent rational. The predominant nationality is made up\nof genuine Russians, whose characteristics are such as to render them\ncapable of being, according to their rulers in the immediate future, an\nimminent danger to Europe, or a model nation to be followed by the rest\nof the world.\n\nThe Russian is good-tempered, patient, loyal, generous, kind-hearted,\nand superstitiously religious. He is extremely emotional and dangerous\nwhen aroused. His easy-going manners, his immense self-esteem, and his\nintense vitality render him an easy victim to the numerous temptations\nwhich aliens are not slow to hold out to him. He is straightforward\nand strongly averse to hypocrisy, and when he is convinced that duty\ndemands from him that he should assist in filling a trench with his\ndead body for the artillery to pass over, or to throw a bomb at the\nCzar, he will do it without a murmur.\n\nHis passiveness, his loyalty, and long-suffering have been cruelly\ntaken advantage of by a long succession of Governments, chiefly\nconsisting of aliens. In Russia the most powerful bureaucracy in the\nworld, composed chiefly of a German element, has taken possession\nof the power, and holds to it in a quasi-unconscious fashion, like a\nbull-dog unable to relax his hold.\n\nThe Government, with such legislation as exists, has gone on for\ncenturies with scarcely any regard for the well-being of the people,\nand the inevitable results are slowly but surely manifesting\nthemselves, and point to some terrible catastrophe.\n\nThe emancipation of the serfs, from which sanguine people, unacquainted\nwith Russian circumstances, hoped so much, shook the old institutions\nto their very foundations, but brought only momentary relief to the\nsuffering people. The _mir_-eaters, or village usurers, have swallowed\nup the land of the peasants, their cattle, and their implements, and\ncompelled large hordes of people to move about the country in search\nof work. Employment is scarce and labour ill paid. The tax-collectors\nare as implacable and the Government officials as corrupt as ever.\nThe tendency\u2014to be observed all over the civilized world\u2014of dividing\nhumanity into two classes, the wealthy and the poor, has nowhere\ndeveloped to the same extent as in Russia. The rich, comparatively\nfew in number, are becoming extremely rich, but the great mass of the\npeople miserably poor.\n\nExtreme poverty, intensified by the pressure of the tax-gatherer and\nthe inhuman methods of the money-lender, has a gnawing effect on a\npeople living in an intensely rigorous climate, in miserable villages\nsparsely scattered over vast monotonous plains.\n\nThe Russians being a sentimental people, it is natural that their\nforlorn condition should cause them to brood over their sad lives\nduring the long and lonely winter nights, or that they should be driven\nto drown their consciousness in _vodka_.\n\nSuch is the stage on which alone a character like Leo Tolstoi can\nbecome intelligible.\n\nBut it is not only the powerful influences from external circumstances\nwhich give that direction to Tolstoi\u2019s mind which Nordau insists in\ninterpreting as a sign of degeneracy. The mode of life and the sphere\nof action he has adopted, in pursuance of the large and noble traits\nof his character, must have been powerfully conducive to his peculiar\nmood and ideas. Nobody who has read his works, even if only those works\nNordau holds to be of the smallest literary merit and fullest of signs\nof degeneracy, would ever conceive the idea that Tolstoi\u2019s mind was\nweak or distorted. But if this novelist had been driven to lunacy,\nit would have been extremely irrational to account for his mental\naberration without considering the outward circumstances that would\nhave produced it.\n\nTolstoi\u2019s sympathies were roused, as those of every noble-minded man\nwould have been roused, by the miserable existence of a people who\npossess all the elements of a great nation. In Russia no such ways\nare open to the reformer as in free States. There is no Parliament, no\norganized political parties, no free Press. A political career is out\nof the question, except in the form of a consistent toadying of those\nin power, and of a blind obedience to those who crush the people. Any\nopposition to Government, or even proffered suggestions, would lead to\nexile in Siberia, and abruptly cut short any man\u2019s activity. Tolstoi\nhad therefore only two courses open to him: either to expatriate\nhimself and to thunder forth in a foreign Press against the abuses of\nthe Russian Government, unheard and unheeded by his own censor-ridden\ncompatriots or to adopt the line of action he did.\n\nIn the cities, where the alien element prevails, and where the scum of\nthe Russian nation congregates, he would be out of contact with his\npeople. His emotional nature would have revolted against the police\ntyranny and spying rampant in the cities, and he would soon have been\nlanded in the clutches of the authorities. He therefore elected to live\namong the peasants as one of them, convinced both by his feelings and\nhis reason that he would thus directly benefit his surroundings by his\nexample and form that leaven by which the whole mass might in time be\nleavened; while his writings simultaneously appealed to those of his\ncountrymen who read books, and those who, outside Russia, sympathize\nwith the Russian people.\n\nWe do not pretend to know Tolstoi\u2019s secret thoughts and his ultimate\nhopes, but we believe it possible that he may, without being an\nirrational enthusiast, or even a dreamer, have reckoned on his writings\nand opinions reaching the highest personages in the Russian empire\nthrough being read by all the upper classes of the world. He may have\nhoped that, after establishing his reputation throughout the literary\nworld, and after having become the pride of his own nation, he would\none day dare to speak such words to the rulers of all the Russians as\nmight save him and his nation.\n\nWhatever may have been his expectations, there can be little doubt that\nhe has met with dire disappointment, not so much in his personal career\nas in his hopes for his fellow-countrymen.\n\nTo the framers of paper constitutions and to theoretical\nrevolutionists, it may seem easy to introduce a new form of Government\nand to regenerate a nation, but, to one who, like Tolstoi, is in close\ncontact with the masses to be regenerated, who has daily experienced\nall the frailty of the material he has to work with, who alone tries to\nswim against overwhelming currents,\u2014to him, the uplifting of a nation\nor a race is a herculean task impossible to approach with the clap-trap\nof the modern agitator.\n\nTolstoi, finding that it is the _morale_ of the people he has to work\nupon, that it is in the religious tendencies of his fellow-men that\ntheir strength lies, concludes, with the full consent of his emotional\nbeing, that religious conceptions, different from the Russian orthodox\nChurch and from the western university theology, must be the foundation\non which he has to build. What therefore is more rational than that he\nshould plunge into religious speculation, and thus expose himself to\nthe mistake of adopting religious views which are prompted as much by\nthe needs of the situation, the circumstances, his own and his people\u2019s\ncharacteristics, as by logical deductions. Greater men than he\u2014Moses,\nMahomet, and others\u2014had done so before him.\n\nBesides, as the postulates he starts from do not spring from exact\nknowledge, but from faith and emotion\u2014as all religious postulates\nnecessarily must do,\u2014and as these, his postulates, are diametrically\nopposed to those which Nordau would pre-suppose, Tolstoi\u2019s conclusions\nmust be the opposite of his; but to differ from Nordau is to be\ndegenerate.\n\nIt is no wonder then that Tolstoi\u2019s books should be more than novels.\nHe had a higher purpose in view than gathering in royalties and\nentertaining his readers. His books are jam with a considerable amount\nof powder in them. If, despite this, they have been widely read\nthroughout the world, ordinary minds would conclude that in creating\nthem their author has accomplished tasks which alone a mind of a high\norder could hope to perform. Our alienist, determined to come to no\nsuch conclusion, supposes that all those who read Tolstoi\u2019s works are\ndegenerates, and that the large sale of his books is consequently a\nconfirmation of Tolstoi\u2019s degeneracy.\n\nWould Nordau apply the same kind of reasoning with regard to the sale\nof his own works? He would probably; but instead of starting with the\nsupposition that contemporary readers of books are incipient lunatics,\nhe would very likely take for granted that the readers who approve of\nhis works are highly intelligent, and that the great sale they have\nattained proves the soundness of his own mind.\n\nIn support of his view, Nordau, who fairly acknowledges the great\nqualities of Tolstoi as a writer of fiction, has the audacity to\nassert that it is not this great quality of his works that has secured\nhim his world-wide fame, but that it is due to his mysticism, which\na degenerate race prefers to a literary and moral value. The only\nsemblance of proof he gives for this view is that Tolstoi\u2019s best\nworks have not contributed to his reputation so much as the _Kreutzer\nSonata_, \u201can inferior creation, which in the public opinion of the\nwestern nations placed him in the first rank of living authors.\u201d But\nwho has decided that the _Kreutzer Sonata_ is inferior to Tolstoi\u2019s\nother works? Only Nordau, whose opinion runs counter to the \u201cwestern\nnations.\u201d If therefore there is any value in Nordau\u2019s argument it rests\nentirely on the astounding fact that the \u201cwestern nations\u201d are all\ndegenerate and Nordau alone is sane.\n\nNordau, like most German bookworms, evidently believes that references\nto an authority, however obscure, are enough to prove any assertion. He\nhas manifestly worked with any number of \u201cconversations-lexicons\u201d and\nencyclopedias about him, in quest of some printed confirmation of the\nextraordinary opinion that the _Kreutzer Sonata_ is a poor book, and\nthat the preceding works of Tolstoi alone contain those grand qualities\nwhich Nordau recognises. He finds that Franz Bornm\u00fcller, an author of\na biographical dictionary, said in 1882 of Tolstoi: \u201cHe possesses no\nordinary talent for fiction, but one devoid of due artistic finish, and\nwhich is influenced by a certain one-sidedness in his views of life and\nhistory.\u201d\n\nIt should be noticed that Nordau gives this quotation in order to\nshow that Tolstoi had not attained any European fame in 1882, that\nis, before the _Kreutzer Sonata_ was written; but with that amazing\nwant of logic characterizing his whole work, he does not see that this\nFranz Bornm\u00fcller thinks very little of the early works of Tolstoi. He\nconsequently differs from Nordau, and shows every sign of sharing the\nopinion of the \u201cwestern nations.\u201d\n\nNordau makes a sharp distinction between Tolstoi\u2019s novels as such\nand the philosophy they enforce. He is thereby enabled to give some\nplausibility to the sophistical assertion that it is not Tolstoi\u2019s\nnovels, but his philosophy, which brought him popularity. This\nphilosophy, which is supposed to prove that Tolstoi\u2019s mind is not\nsound, Nordau sums up in the following way: \u201cThe individual is nothing,\nthe species is everything, the individual lives in order to do his\nfellow-creatures good; thought and inquiry are great evils; science is\nperdition; faith is salvation.\u201d Among these items there is only one\nwhich differs from the views of the bulk of humanity\u2014from that ordinary\ncommon-sense which Nordau so often takes as a standard of sanity, even\nin the superstitious peasant. We refer to the item in which he says\nthat thought and inquiry are great evils. Nowhere in Tolstoi\u2019s writings\ncan such a nonsensical phrase be found. It is one of those little\ntouches that Nordau so dexterously applies, or which his prejudice\ncauses him to apply, in order to strengthen his case in his readers\u2019,\nor perhaps in his own, eyes. He appears to ignore such works as _My\nConfession_, _My Faith_, _A Short Exposition of the Gospel_, and _About\nmy Life_, all works built up by elaborate thoughts. The whole life of\nTolstoi has been one of \u201cthought and inquiry,\u201d and all his literary\nwork is an invitation to think and to inquire. Tolstoi objects only\nto such thought and inquiry as vainly attempt to carry the methods of\ninductive science into spheres where the observation of our senses\nis of no avail, and where their failure tempts us to believe in the\nnon-existence of that all-important portion of the universe into which\nfaith alone can penetrate.\n\nThat Tolstoi should distrust science, after the presumptuous attitude\nwhich scientists have taken up, will surprise nobody who has read\nwhat we have said about this bankruptcy of science. Many scientists,\nincluding Nordau, have in their gratuitous attacks on religion so\nrecklessly mixed up scientific fact with scientific speculation, that\nthey must blame themselves if people use the term \u201cscience\u201d when it\nwould be more correct to employ that of \u201cunscientific speculations.\u201d\n\nThat a thinker, who is at the same time the instructor of the ignorant\nmasses, should look upon faith as a means of salvation, is not new, and\ncannot be considered as a sign of mental aberration; for millions of\nsane common-sense men have for thousands of years held this opinion.\nEven if we apply the word salvation exclusively to society in general,\nto the race, or to one nation, leaving out any references to individual\nsalvation in another world, faith of some kind is the only source from\nwhich it could spring. Scientists of Nordau\u2019s type seem unable to\nunderstand that science means the knowledge of absolute facts which,\nwhile quite capable of undermining and destroying the foundations\non which a more or less primitive religion rests, cannot possibly\ncome into collision with faith in the widest sense of the term. When\na scientist and a religionist differ about things which have not\ncome under scientific inquiry\u2014such as the final aim of the scheme of\nhumanity, for example\u2014the dispute is not between science and faith, but\nbetween two different faiths. Science therefore cannot regulate our\nconduct, determine our views, or save a nation. This alone can be done\nby faith, be it based on science, on tradition, or emotion. A great\nscientific knowledge might be degraded into an excuse for, and a means\nof, an irresponsible, selfish, and wicked life; or it might ennoble the\nmind, intensify the sense of responsibility, and serve as the means of\nrendering great services to humanity. All depends on the faith of the\nscientist.\n\nThe end of what we may call the era of scientific atheism, now at hand,\npresents most deplorable results, as we have already pointed out, of\nremoving the only foundations of a moral balance available to those who\nhave not had any opportunity of drawing from scientific studies that\nstrength of character, and those noble aspirations to be met with in\nscientists who have a genuine faith\u2014a faith in their science and in\nhumanity, if in nothing else. Tolstoi, who, like every thinking man of\nour time, had seen the disastrous effects which scientific atheism had\nproduced, cannot possibly be regarded as of weak intellect because he\nrejected scientific superstition and proclaimed faith as the true basis\nof conduct and character.\n\nNordau finds traces of degeneracy in Tolstoi\u2019s question, \u201cWherefore\nam I alive?\u201d and in the manner in which Tolstoi finds a reply to that\nquestion. It seems however that Nordau too has asked, himself that\nquestion, for in his book _Degeneration_ (page 149) he replies to it\nin a close, well-reasoned, passage, which deserves to be read to its\nfull extent. We shall quote only a part of it in order to compare the\nreply he himself obtains with the reply obtained, by Tolstoi. After\nhaving shown that the aim of a man\u2019s life is necessarily involved in\nthe greater question\u2014the aim of the universe\u2014and that such an aim\ncannot exist objectively in time or space, he says: \u201cBut if it is not\nobjective, if it does not exist in time and space, it must, in order\nto be conceivable, exist somewhere, virtually, as idea, as a plan\nand design. But that which contains a design, a thought, a plan, we\nname consciousness; and consciousness that can conceive a plan of the\nuniverse, and for its realization designedly uses the forces of nature,\nis synonymous, with God. If a man however believes in a God, he loses\nat once the right to raise the question, \u2018Wherefore am I alive?\u2019 since\nit is in that case an insolent presumption, an effort of small, weak\nman to look over God\u2019s shoulder, to spy out God\u2019s plan, to aspire to\nthe height of omniscience. But neither is it in such a case necessary,\nsince a God without the highest wisdom cannot be conceived; and if\nHe has devised a plan for the world, this is certain to be perfect,\nall its parts are in harmony, and the aim to which every co-operator,\nfrom the smallest to the greatest, will devote himself is the best\nconceivable. Thus man can live in complete rest and confidence in the\nimpulses and forces implanted in him by God, because he, in every case,\nfulfils a high and worthy destiny by co-operating in a, to him, unknown\nDivine plan of the world.\u201d\n\nWe here notice his words: \u201cthat which contains a design, a thought,\na plan, we name consciousness.\u201d Now, nobody knows better than the\nscientists that so far all scientific discovery has revealed plan,\nmethod, and purpose, in the smallest thing and the smallest phenomena\nin the universe. Is it then necessary to be degenerate to believe in\na self-conscious Providence? John Stuart Mill observes that the fact\nthat we find in nature, especially in human and animal bodies, physical\nand mechanical problems solved in the same way as engineers had solved\nthem long before they knew of such solutions in nature, points not only\nto the existence of an intelligent Creator, but to a similarity of His\nintelligence to that of human beings.\n\nAccording to the passage from Nordau, then, the planning in nature\nproves a conscious force, a conscious force is synonymous with God, and\nthe man who believes in God can live in complete rest in his faith.\nTolstoi obtained a reply to his question in a manner which he describes\nin the following words:\n\n\u201cIt was quite the same to me whether Jesus was God or not God; whether\nthe Holy Ghost proceeded from the one or the other. It was likely\nneither necessary nor important for me to know how, when, and by whom\nthe Gospels, or any one of the parables were composed, and whether\nthey could be ascribed to Christ or not. What to me was important was\nthat the light which for eighteen hundred years was the light of the\nworld is that light still; but what name was to be given to the source\nof this light, or what were its component parts, and by whom it was\nlighted, was quite indifferent to me.\u201d\n\nThe difference in the two replies is one of words only. If therefore\nNordau acknowledged that a sensible man could ask such a question, and\nif the reply of Nordau we have just quoted is recognised by him as his\nown opinion, he and Tolstoi would stand very much in the same category.\nBut Nordau does not think that a perfectly sane mind would ask such\na question; and if it was asked, he has another reply. This reply is\nhowever far from being so clear as the other. \u201cIf,\u201d he says, \u201con the\nother hand, there is no belief in a God, it is also impossible to form\na conception of the aim, for then the aim existing in consciousness\nonly as an idea, in the absence of a universal consciousness, has no\nlocus for existence; there is no place for it in nature.\u201d From this it\nought to follow that, if a man does not believe in God, there is no\nGod, and consequently there can be no aim. He then proceeds to argue\nthat, if there be no aim, it is useless to ask the question, \u201cWherefore\nam I alive?\u201d but that we can ask the question, \u201cWhy do we live?\u201d\nHis reply to this is characteristic: \u201cWe live in obedience to the\nmechanical law of causality, which requires no plan and no universal\nconsciousness.\u201d\n\nIt is curious to behold how Nordau cannot perceive that his question,\n\u201cWhy do we live?\u201d implies the question, \u201cWhence the mechanical law of\ncausality?\u201d and that his reply is simply, \u201cWe live because we live.\u201d\nOnce he has accepted this self-delusion as a solid foundation, his\nreasoning again becomes rational, and does not bear on the point before\nus. The most astounding part of it is that Nordau considers Tolstoi,\nand all others whose instinct, whose emotion, and whose immutable\nreasoning point to a cause behind Nordau\u2019s home-made mechanical law of\ncausality, as thereby showing signs of mental degeneration.\n\nNordau, in order to prove the confusion existing in Tolstoi\u2019s ideas,\nseems to take for granted that the tendency towards Pantheism,\nperceptible in the Russian\u2019s reasoning, is utterly at variance with\nChristianity. We would simply point out that Tolstoi has his own\nChristianity, framed on his own interpretation of the Gospels, and not\nany previously existing Christianity, and is therefore at liberty to\nproclaim a creed which has a Pantheistic tendency without exposing\nhimself to the reproach of being inconsequent. But we consider it more\nimportant to notice the fact that the Gospels, far from laying down any\ndogmas, are the record of the life of a man\u2014divine or not divine\u2014whose\nmission it was to protest against dogmas. He called God \u201cFather,\u201d in\norder to speak of universal consciousness only in its relations to man,\nleaving it to the doctrinaires and the philosophers to agree as best\nthey could on the question of Pantheism or no Pantheism. Besides, the\nGospels certainly emphasize the omnipresence of the Creator; and if\nthis Pantheistic tendency had not existed among the disciples, it is\nnot likely that St. Paul would have said, \u201cIn Him we live, we move, and\nhave our being.\u201d\n\nThe shallow, superficial manner in which Nordau treats Tolstoi\u2019s\nethics is certainly unworthy of him, and amounts simply to a quibble.\nThese ethics, correctly summed up, \u201cResist not evil, judge not, kill\nnot,\u201d which correspond precisely with the teachings of Christ, Nordau\ndoes not regard as ethics, but proceeds solemnly to test them as\nexpediencies in peculiar cases, and comes to the conclusion that they\nare ridiculous.\n\nMust we then conclude that Nordau has no such ethics, but that he\nbelieves it right to return evil for evil,\u2014_vendetta_ fashion,\u2014that\nhe objects to suffer wrong for a good cause, and that he revels in\nindiscriminate murder? Tolstoi\u2019s ethics, as ethics should do, hold\nup the ideal for which we should strive, and as a practical test of\nthem we must consider not the murder and plunder of one good man by\na bad one, but the state which would ensue if all men conformed to\nthem. The practical moral we ought to draw from them is not that laws\nand law courts should be abolished, but that laws should be framed\nand law courts should be managed in such a way as to favour a general\nacceptance of such ethics. Here again Nordau indulges in illogical\nreasoning, and in contradictions of himself. He takes for granted\nthat humanity is so utterly depraved that if \u201cthe fear of the gallows\ndid not prevent it, throat-cutting and stealing would be the most\ngenerally adopted trade.\u201d This means that Nordau in one place in his\nbook declares human beings are too good, too noble, too honest to need\nany belief in a hell, but in another place declares that they are far\ntoo depraved to do without the fear of the gallows. He forgets that\ngood ethics have sprung from the good instincts of our race, and that\ncrime has largely been fostered by bad laws, bad law courts, and bad\ninstitutions.\n\nIn one of his stories, entitled _From the Diary of Nechljudow_,\nTolstoi\u2019s hero, Prince Nechljudow, is a most eccentric character,\ncreated probably for the purpose of showing the absurdity of\nindiscriminate charity and other impulsive actions of the erratics of\nour day. Nordau gives an account of one of the instances in which the\nPrince\u2019s selfish way of practising charity is forcibly brought out.\nHe evidently does this in order that the Prince\u2019s action should be\naccepted as an illustration of what Tolstoi means by charity. This is\nboth absurd and unjust. It amounts to an identification of the author\nwith the character he represents\u2014a way of insinuating degeneracy in\nauthors who simply hold it up in their characters as a warning. To thus\nmix up authors with their characters is a mistake frequently committed\nby unintelligent readers, but it is surprising to find that with Nordau\nit is an habitual method.\n\nWith regard to the character Pozdnyscheff, Nordau does the same thing.\nHe takes for granted that the opinions expressed by this character are\nthose of the author. The passages he extracts from _Short Expositions_,\nin which Tolstoi\u2019s own opinions are expressed, in no wise justify such\na supposition.\n\nNordau\u2019s explanation of the enormous success Tolstoi\u2019s books have\nachieved is that it is due to general degeneration among the upper\nclasses throughout the world. If he could personally meet the hundreds\nof thousands of English people who have read Tolstoi\u2019s works, he would\nbe able to form an idea of the immensity of his mistake. He would find\nthat the majority of these people belong to a middle class, consisting\nof persons who are not overworked and who indulge in none of the vices\nof the continental aristocracies. Their muscles and their nerves have\nbeen strengthened and fortified by a healthy education, and by a love\nof bodily exercise, sport and even danger, and by a moral life. They\nlive in a country where the authorities have found that to proscribe\nany licentious book is to promote its sale, and where consequently\nthere is hardly any check upon morbid literature. Yet there is not a\ncountry where less of it is circulated than in England. It is true\nthat these readers of Tolstoi have not attained to that height of\nintellectual development which would permit them to accept Nordau\u2019s\n\u201cmechanical causality\u201d as a satisfying explanation of the universe;\nbut, on the other hand, it would be difficult to find a people so\nreligiously inclined, and yet so free from superstition and fanaticism.\n\nSome of them may like Rossetti\u2019s pictures, and many of them Burne\nJones\u2019s, but as a rule they have an equal admiration for Raphael,\nTintoretto, Correggio, and others. They cannot be classed among the\nmystics on that account. As few of them write books, they cannot be\ncalled graphomaniacs. Nor do they show any signs of being egomaniacs.\nNor have they any physical stigmata of degenerates. The heads of this\nclass are generally beautifully shaped, and the ears of the women\nare by all foreigners who visit this country proclaimed to be the\nfinest and daintiest ears in the world. Personal beauty among this\nclass is decidedly on the increase; for each generation seems to be\nbetter-looking, and the youngest is generally the most beautiful. The\nlatter fact, we may mention, is no doubt due to the increasing tendency\nof the upper and middle classes in England to beautify their homes and\nto surround themselves with exquisite objects, as well as to a more\nintellectual education, pastimes, pleasures, and arts.\n\nWhy then must these readers of Tolstoi\u2019s works be classed as degenerate?\n\nIt is not denied that in England there are people who exhibit signs\nof mental degeneration, but they are to be found more in literary\nand political circles than in the close ranks of the upper and\nmiddle classes. We would not undertake to class them under the\nheadings established by the alienist, and it would be difficult even\nfor Nordau to do so. Perhaps they are not sufficiently advanced in\ndegeneracy to be so classed. Such signs as they exhibit are some of\nthem as old as the hills, and others are clearly the manifestations\nof that intellectual and moral daze which generally follows on the\ndestruction of the religious foundations of belief involved in the\nacceptance of belief in scientific atheism. But the most prevalent\nform of degeneracy is that which is palpably the result of financial\ndepression, felt not only in financial but artistic and literary\ncircles. For reasons which we leave to the economists to explain,\nEngland\u2019s commerce and agriculture seem to have come to a dead-lock.\nThe result seems to be diminished incomes all round. Many artists,\n_litt\u00e9rateurs_, and politicians are at their wits\u2019 end how to make\nan income, and there can be little doubt that this has fostered a\ncertain amount of demoralization. Extraordinary attempts are made\nto produce sensational pictures, to write eccentric poetry, to send\nforth books that will shock, and to treat of risky subjects on the\nstage. Politicians are obliged to make politics a profession, and, as\npopularity is indispensable to it as a profitable profession, they\nworship majorities. Any one who is acquainted with London cannot doubt\nfor a moment that these forms of demoralization spring entirely from\na necessity of making a living. Artists, authors, and politicians\nof this class are no more inclined to lunacy than the vast class of\npeople who do distasteful work, as well as those who have to appear\nbefore the public in dangerous but not much esteemed performances. If\nthe financial depression is destined to disappear, there can be little\ndoubt that the majority of these signs of demoralization will also\ndisappear.\n\nThere are in this country, as everywhere else, real degenerates, people\nwho have weakened their brains and moral faculties by drink, debauch,\noverwork, or persons who have inherited mental debility. There are\nalso among us, we regret to say, an alarming number of destitute people\nwho have been driven into mental derangement by those terrible pangs\nthat misery inflicts. But all these degenerates care as little for\nTolstoi\u2019s novels as they do for Rossetti\u2019s or Burne Jones\u2019s pictures.\n\nThough English circumstances are vastly different from continental,\nthere can be no doubt that the causes which have rendered Tolstoi\u2019s\nnovels popular are the same here as in other countries. The scientific\natheists have introduced into literature a materialist, selfish,\nsceptical, pessimistic, and cynical tone which was tolerated by the\npublic for a long time. On the continent they had Zola and his wretched\nimitators, whose books found their way among us, while England has\nproduced a crop of neurotic storytellers, playwrights, and versifiers,\nmade up for the most part of masculine women and effeminate men, who\nhave exploited to the utmost the atheistic vein.\n\nThe noble spirit which atheism was to bring to the front somehow did\nnot take to literature, and the reading classes of the world began to\nmiss those pure joys which reading used to afford them. The books of\nthe day offended their religious feelings, their sense of decency,\ntheir loftiest conceptions of the world, and their self-esteem, without\namusing them. The whole literature of fiction had become stilted, and\nthe morbid and pessimistic authors departed so widely from nature\nand evinced so many signs of utter insincerity that the reading world\nlonged to be face to face with a man who spoke his innermost thoughts.\nThe world was therefore ready for a new departure in literature.\n\nWhat wonder then that Tolstoi\u2019s works were well received. They bore\nwitness to consummate ability, a close study of human nature. They\npresented a true picture of social Russia. They afforded an insight\ninto the Russian mind. His readers experienced the intellectual treat\noffered by few books,\u2014that of feeling the presence of a master-mind,\nand of following the thoughts of a thoroughly sincere writer, free from\nthe cheap ready-made materialist philosophy\u2014a man who devotes both his\nlife and his work, with almost superhuman energy, to the regeneration\nof his race.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\n_THE REAL IBSEN_\n\n\nIn reading Nordau\u2019s chapter on Ibsen, one cannot help wondering why\nour alienist has given his book the form he has. The feeling which\nthe preceding contents of his work have more or less inspired\u2014that\nthere is a discrepancy between the apparent plan of the work and its\nexecution\u2014almost ripens into conviction on the perusal of his chapter\non Ibsen.\n\nHe says in his dedication to Professor Lombroso: \u201cNow I have undertaken\nthe work of investigating the tendencies of the fashion in art and\nliterature, of proving that they have their source in the degeneracy\nof their authors, and that the enthusiasm of their admirers is for\nmanifestations of more or less pronounced moral insanity, imbecility,\nand dementia.\u201d He also says that he \u201cventures to fill a void in your\n[Lombroso\u2019s] powerful system.\u201d From what he says higher up on the same\npage about the power of books and works of art to influence the masses,\nand his many hints in other parts of the book, as, for example, in its\nconcluding pages, we must understand that his great object is to do\nwhat he can to arrest the downward movement of human intelligence.\n\nHe thus assumes that there is a degenerating process going on\nthroughout civilization, but attentive readers of his book feel the\nwhole time that this assumption, far from being proved to be correct,\nrests on data supplied by Nordau, which strongly warn his readers to\naccept them only with a grain of salt.\n\nOn the other hand, there are a host of indications in all civilized\ncountries pointing to an increase in intellectual power, moral\nstrength, and \u00e6sthetic refinement. Some of these indications would\nprobably not be undervalued by Nordau himself: the rapid progress of\nscience, the increasing education among the masses, the large number of\nnewspapers and periodicals dealing intelligently with various branches\nof knowledge, professions, and trades, the wider application of\nscientific methods to industry, wonderful inventions, not the outcome\nof discovery, but of intelligent induction, the decay of superstition,\nlove of investigation, etc. Nordau, having allowed that the test of\na sound mind is its ability to attend rationally to one\u2019s business,\nought to recognize that the growth of intellectual power is manifest in\nimproved business methods, skill, manufacturing, complicated and daring\nfinancial schemes, ingenious co-operative systems, well-managed and\ndisciplined trades\u2019-unions, nay, even cleverly laid plots to defraud.\n\nAn increasing moral strength is proved by the growth of the altruistic\nfeeling, the devotion with which the cause of humanity, morality, and\nprogress is served by people who, thanks to scientific scepticism,\nexpect no reward in another world; the greater sincerity observable in\nall religious bodies, the magnitude of charitable institutions, the\nmagnificent heroism displayed by captains and crews on sinking ships,\nby our life-boat men in attempting to save the shipwrecked, by our\ncolliers\u2019 efforts to rescue the victims of explosions, etc. The great\nvictories of the Germans over the French and the complete success\nof the commanders\u2019 daring tactics have been largely, and probably\ncorrectly, ascribed to the moral qualities of the German army, while\nthe utter defeat of the French cannot be ascribed to the want of moral\nqualities, but to bad leadership. A quarter of a century has elapsed\nsince the Franco-German war, but there is no reason to believe that the\nmoral qualities of the German army have degenerated. That no degeneracy\nhas taken place in the English, French, and Italian armies has been\nproved by the Chitral expedition, by the French war with Madagascar,\nand by the Italian operations in Africa.\n\nIf, despite these manifest signs of growing intellectual power and\nmoral strength, Nordau\u2019s deep insight into psychological matters\nhas revealed to him a mental degeneracy in the civilized world, his\nway of investigating such decay, his mode of dealing with it, and\nespecially the causes he attributes to it, are too vacillating, too\ncontradictory, and too biassed to inspire confidence. While sometimes,\nas in his chapter entitled \u201cEtiology,\u201d he refers to such causes as\nthe increase in the consumption of spirits and tobacco, the factory\nsystem, overwork, overcrowding\u2014all causes palpable to all who have\ngiven any attention to social questions,\u2014in the rest of his book he\nseems to regard certain popular writers and artists as the great\ncause of general degeneration who should be specially noticed. This\ncontradiction cannot be explained away on the plea that his book is\nonly part of a wider investigation which has already been made, or\nmight be made, regarding the causes of degeneration, and that, so long\nas his work is intended to treat of the influence of literature and\nart, his ignoring of other causes is legitimate. If an effect is first\nattributed to one cause and then to another, we may be sure that there\nis something wrong with the reasoning. We cannot prove first that\nthe tendency to hysteria, so common in people engaged in a certain\nclass of business, is due to overwork, and afterwards prove that the\nsame tendency in the same people is due to Rossetti\u2019s pictures or to\nSwinburne\u2019s poems.\n\nNordau never furnishes an explanation of the enormous importance\nhe attaches to the influence of writers and artists, and the small\nimportance he attaches to the more palpable causes of degeneration,\nof the existence of some of which he is aware. Nor does he tell us\nhow he reconciles the two facts, alternately insisted upon by him,\nthat degeneration in artists is the cause of degeneration in their\nsurroundings; and again, that the degeneration of their surroundings is\nthe cause of degeneration in artists and authors.\n\nIf such artists and authors as Nordau believes to be degenerate are\nthe effect of degeneration all round, they are surely the smallest and\nleast deplorable results, and it was certainly not worth while to write\nso bulky a volume about them. Nordau mentions about a score; and what\nis a score compared to the mass of humanity, or to the five hundred\nmillion people included in western civilization? A degeneration that\nwould not have other results than that of producing twenty degenerate\nmen, who, though they are in many respects a source of enjoyment to\nmany, may have a grain of insanity in their brains, would not be worth\nnoticing. If, on the other hand, these supposed degenerates are not\nwhat, to the ordinary mind, they decidedly appear to be\u2014the children of\ntheir time\u2014but the actual causes of such serious psychological effects\nwhich statistics seem to reveal, we are face to face with a phenomenon\nwhich surely demanded a different method of investigation.\n\nThe real connection between the causes and the effects should have been\nascertained. For instance, the most alarming feature of degeneration\nin England\u2014that weak-mindedness which leads to drunkenness\u2014should\nhave been connected with the mystical painters and poets, and should\nhave been proved not to have been the result of those causes which\nseem palpable to every man. Then the influence of individuals on the\nmasses in general should have been ascertained. History offers a wide\nfield for such an investigation. If it had been found that authors\nand artists exercise less influence than other individuals, such as\nsovereigns, statesmen, prophets, reformers, revolutionary leaders,\ndiscoverers, explorers, and others, the influence of these should have\nat first been studied, and what could not be attributed to them might\nhave been laid at the door of artists and authors.\n\nIn examining history, old and new, we are struck with the extremely\nslight effects which have been produced by _litt\u00e9rateurs_ and\nartists, and the enormous, all-powerful influence exercised by other\nindividuals. Books have influenced books, poets have influenced\npoets, painters have influenced painters, but the political, social,\nintellectual, moral, and \u00e6sthetical development of a nation has over\nand over again been completely determined by men who have been neither\nartists nor authors.\n\nIn modern times the same fact is palpable. Has ever the world been\ninfluenced more than by such men as Cavour, Prince Bismarck, Mr.\nGladstone, Napoleon III.? and how might not the fate of humanity\nbe determined in the near future by such men as, for example, the\nEmperor of Germany and the Czar of Russia? On the mental qualities\nof the Emperor of Germany depends largely whether Germany is to be\ncrushed under the army system; whether it is to be ruined by financial\nblunderings; whether there shall be peaceful development of its\nresources, or war to the knife between its classes; whether healthy\nreforms shall gradually clear away its social anomalies, or whether a\nrevolution of unprecedented atrocity shall uproot its very foundations;\nwhether its inhabitants shall develop those characteristics to which\npeace and happiness are conducive, or those which would inevitably be\nfostered if Germany were made the battle-field of modern armies.\n\nOn the mental qualities of the Czar depend directly the destiny of a\nhundred million people, and indirectly the peace of the world. Russia\nis only too willing to progress under an imperial leader. On the\noccasion of his accession to the throne and his marriage, millions\nof people anxiously scanned his portrait and tried to read in his\nfeatures the fate of Europe. The presence of lines supposed to indicate\nweak character produced prophecies of clerical domination, opposition\nto progress, and death to Russia; while a kindly expression of the\neyes inspired many with hopes of a new era for Tolstoi\u2019s unfortunate\ncountrymen.\n\nIt is not only personages of high rank and sovereign power whose mental\nstate is of utmost importance to humanity. The political situation\nin most countries is capable of producing at any moment a man who,\nwithout being either an author or an artist, might be able to change\nthe destiny of nations. It is not the opportunity that is wanting,\nit is the men. France is panting for a man. The working classes in\nAmerica and in England stand in need of a good leader. In Germany\nLiebknecht threatens to divide the power with the Emperor. A political\nTolstoi might, at the head of the Russian people, sweep the recreant\nbureaucrats from his Fatherland.\n\nIt is then sovereigns, politicians, and popular leaders whose\nmental state is of the utmost importance, and whose influence may\noverwhelmingly determine the mental and moral development of humanity.\nAn answer to the question whether they are degenerates, or whether\nthey are of mentally or morally sound mind, is momentous to the whole\ncivilized world, especially if it be admitted that the minds of the\nrace are so susceptible of being moulded by the minds of influential\nmen.\n\nBut who are the men whom Nordau blames for the degeneracy for which\nhe finds the proof in statistics? Poets and artists, whose very names\nare known only to the educated classes, and who for the most part\nsupply what the market demands, or simply reflect the society around\nthem. The most surprising of all is that he himself denies any power\nor any talent in some of these men, calling them\u2014to omit his worse\nepithets\u2014such names as drivelling idiots, weak-minded graphomaniacs,\netc.\n\nOne condition seems however necessary before a man can receive the\ncompliment of being called names by Nordau\u2014he must have attracted\npublic attention. We have therefore said, and repeat it, that his\ndesperate attempt to make out Ibsen to be a degenerate renders it\nimpossible to form a clear idea of his object, or of his reasons, for\nthe methods he has adopted.\n\nHenrik Ibsen aims not at being a prophet, a teacher, or a regenerator\nof mankind either by literary or scientific methods. No one can\ndetect in his works special ethics, or particular religious or social\nviews. It is characteristic of his pieces\u2014and according to many of\nhis opponents a great fault in them\u2014that he points no moral, that the\nquestions involved remain at the end of the piece exactly where they\nwere at the beginning, that his heroes and heroines are no heroes and\nno heroines, and cannot serve as models of conduct. His opponents and\nadmirers alike complain that they cannot get at his meaning, and that\nhe will not explain himself. It is therefore surprising that there\nshould be so much talk about the influence he exercises, and that\nNordau himself should speak about \u201cIbsen\u2019s dogmas,\u201d \u201cIbsen\u2019s code of\nmorals,\u201d and about Ibsen himself as a \u201creformer.\u201d\n\nThose who speak about Ibsen\u2019s influence on the ethics of our time\ncannot, as a rule, give any explanation of their meaning which can\njustify the importance they attach to it. They are apt to point to\nhis influence on the English drama and blame him for certain of its\nobjectionable features. But to those who understand his pieces it is\nperfectly clear that he has not been followed by English dramatists in\nsuch things as have made him famous and popular. They have contented\nthemselves with imitating certain situations and with referring to some\nobjectionable feature in modern society, which Ibsen does reluctantly,\ncompelled to do so by the situation, and in order to emphasize types of\ncharacter which are only too common in every civilized country, but are\nso closely draped in hypocrisy as to require the great dramatist\u2019s lens\nto show them up. His imitators however exemplify entirely exceptional\ncases and conjure up characters the prototypes of which it would be\nextremely hard to find. He aims at presenting stern reality; they aim\nat producing risky situations. Indeed, his imitators cannot be said to\nhave been influenced by him more than has his brilliant parodist, Mr.\nF. Anstey.\n\nIn Germany, as in the Scandinavian countries, complaints are sometimes\nraised against Ibsen\u2019s influence on women, especially young women.\nOur daughters are getting Ibsenized, is the cry raised by a number of\nPhilistine parents. It is perhaps natural that Ibsen\u2019s influence on\nwomen in those countries, where the staging of Ibsen\u2019s pieces recalls\nmore familiar presentations should be greater than in England, where\nthe Norwegian manner of life is but little known. But too much weight\nmight easily be attached to the difference in acquaintance with Norway.\nThere is a far more powerful reason why Ibsen\u2019s so-called influence\nshould appear to be more marked on German and Norwegian women than on\nEnglish women.\n\nWith the exception of the United States, there is no country in the\nworld where respectable women are better treated than in England. An\nold adage says, with a great deal of truth, that the wife of the German\nis his slave, the wife of the Frenchman is his mistress, and the wife\nof the Englishman is the queen of his house. The German woman certainly\nhas of old held a position in her home which might well lead her to\nenvy the English woman, and as the Scandinavian countries have been\nlargely affected by Germany in their social manners and habits, the\nwomen of these countries have ample cause for dissatisfaction. Since\nthe time of Frederika Bremer, a woman\u2019s revolt has been brewing in\nthe Scandinavian countries, and the aspirations for more liberty, a\nmore natural life, and more happiness have been constantly becoming\nstronger, and were highly developed before Ibsen\u2019s first piece\nappeared. Besides, the spread of English fiction in Germany and in the\nnorthern countries of Europe has shown the women of those countries\nthat a happier life is quite possible.\n\nThe road to the realization of such aspirations was however barred by\ncustom and the selfish view of the question taken by the men. They\nhad no objection to high-spirited, talented, well-dressed, and lively\nwomen, whose attractions could evoke in them romantic and ardent\nfeelings; and a great many knew well enough that leisure, exemption\nfrom hard work, good food, plenty of exercise, suitable friends,\nartistic surroundings, good books, a fair amount of pleasure, and\nconsiderate treatment were required to transform a young woman into\nthat feminine ideal which they worshipped in their imagination. But\nthey repudiated entirely the idea of having such ideals in their wives.\nIt would have clashed far too much with the traditional type of a good\nwife, and to marry one deviating from this type would have set the\nwhole circle of acquaintances talking. Besides, a wife conforming to\nthe ideal was considered an expensive luxury, leading to waste of money\nwhich could be much better employed.\n\nMothers of girls, well acquainted with the marriage market,\nconsequently exerted all their energy to form their daughters for\nthe positions they were expected to occupy. House-cleaning, washing,\ncooking, darning, etc.,\u2014this was what they had to learn. A demure\ndemeanour was what they had to practise. The society of men was what\nthey had to avoid. Romantic ideas had, above all, to be suppressed,\nand only such love as would come after marriage, or at least after\nbetrothal, was considered legitimate and decent.\n\nA great feature in their education was to closely observe the evils and\ntroubles which followed upon poverty, and how much more comfortable\nlife would be with a prosperous though unattractive husband than with a\nbeloved man who might not succeed in the world. The idea of refusing a\nproposal of marriage from a well-to-do man, however old and prosy, was\nregarded as preposterous, and any respectable girl dreaming of such a\nthing would have been considered as a romantic, ungrateful hussy.\n\nAs the men seldom married young, the girls were taught to ask no\nquestions about their past, and were trained to sacrifice all their\nideals of purity, their dreams of love, what a free woman would call\nher self-respect, their future happiness, their healthful youth, on the\naltar of Philistine respectability.\n\nThere are other ways of degrading women besides yoking them with an\nox to a plough, and that they were degraded and de-naturalized the\nthinking German and Scandinavian women had felt long before Ibsen\nwrote plays. The struggle for better treatment was however extremely\nweak and the progress towards emancipation extremely slow. Just\nas oppressive government, with its police persecution, gags open\ndiscontent and drives the forces of revolt under ground, so the tyranny\nover the German and Scandinavian women\u2014when tradition and prejudice\nprevented open manifestations\u2014developed in the hearts of women,\nespecially among the most gifted, a dangerously strong spirit of revolt.\n\nAlready at the time when Ibsen began to write there were numerous\nbut isolated outbreaks. The old treatment, which generally resulted\nin turning the married woman into a dull, despondent house-slave, a\nsoured invalid, a nagging scold, or a gossiping zany, began to produce\nscoffing Aspasias, neurotic adventuresses, and here and there avenging\nfuries.\n\nThis tendency to revolt among the women was stronger in Norway than in\nthe other countries, because it developed parallel with that ethical\nawakening\u2014the new _Aand_[1]\u2014which during the latter part of this\ncentury has taken possession of so many Norwegian minds; also because\nthe strongly imaginative and contemplative character of the Norwegian\npeople, and the intensely emotional nature of their women, led them\nto brood over their wrongs in a thoroughly Norwegian fashion. Better\neducation and wide reading tended in the same direction.\n\n    [Footnote 1: _Aand_, the Norwegian for spirit, inspiration.]\n\nIbsen has therefore not Ibsenized the Scandinavian ladies. He has\nsimply seized upon a social phenomenon and, understanding its gravity,\nhas held it up to his contemporaries for a study and a warning.\n\nNordau, having committed the egregious mistake of believing that Ibsen\nhas invented whereas he has in reality only copied, and that a social\nphenomenon which is natural to intellectual and moral progress is a\nresult of Ibsen\u2019s writings, is, in his capacity of the most German of\nGermans, naturally wroth with Ibsen for representing as a social evil\nwhat a normal sound-minded common-sense German\u2014the very type of the\nnon-degenerate\u2014would consider as a useful and comfortable arrangement.\nThere are several excuses for Nordau\u2019s belief that Ibsen misrepresents\nreality. The improvement in woman\u2019s status in society has no doubt\nadvanced more in Germany than in the Scandinavian countries. It is\npossible that the Dowager Empress\u2019s influence as an Englishwoman has\nnot been so great as is generally supposed, but there can be little\ndoubt that English novels, from Charlotte Bront\u00e9\u2019s _Jane Eyre_ upwards,\nhave considerably furthered justice towards German women. The close\nbusiness connections between Germany and England, the numerous Germans\nwho have had a long experience of English life, have no doubt done much\nto spread English social views in Germany.\n\nThe German women may therefore now have less cause for discontent and\nrevolt than the Scandinavian women, and it is excusable if the Germans\nconsider that they treat them fairly and well.\n\nTo observing Englishmen who visit Germany it is however clear that the\nwhole Philistine idea of the housewife is still prevailing in that\ncountry. A great number of husbands consider it a distinct advantage\nto be able to throw off all restraint in their own homes and to compel\ntheir wives to accommodate themselves as well as they can to their\nwhims, their habits, their indulgences. That exasperating type, the\nhouse-tyrant, which is found in all countries, and not seldom in\nEngland, is especially prevalent in Germany.\n\nGerman men are well aware that their wives have nothing in common\nwith the fascinating ideal woman of their imagination, and they are\nquite satisfied that it should be so. Their work, their studies, their\nprofession, or their business demands all their attention, and they\ncould not dream of dismissing them from their minds when they enter\ntheir homes. A woman who would distract her husband\u2019s attention from\nsuch important subjects would be an impediment to his success, while\nthe typical housewife, by her cares and ministrations, furthers it.\nLike most men, Germans have chivalrous leanings, and enjoy a courteous\nintercourse with ladies, but it is generally not their wives who reap\nthe advantages of this taste. It is the other ladies, those they\nmeet in society, and not seldom do they muster all their powers of\ngallantry, all their means of pleasing, and all their faculty to amuse\nin the company of women of light character, often in every respect\ninferior to their wives.\n\nIt is those German women who feel that their happiness and their\nlives have been sacrificed, not for their husbands, but to a vicious\nconception of married life, who sympathize with the women of Ibsen, and\nhave thus contributed largely to the fame of that dramatist in Germany.\n\nIbsen has not Ibsenized the German ladies, but his pieces have revealed\nthe existence of a grudge long harboured by German women.\n\nIt is only just to record that, though Englishwomen, especially those\nwho live and are treated up to the English ideal, as we mentioned\nbefore, live under much happier circumstances as children, girls,\n_fianc\u00e9es_, and wives, there are many of our countrywomen whose\nmarriages have been a cruel disillusion. Many Englishmen marry too\nyoung, before they know their own minds, and under the feverish\nimpulse of a first love. When such young husbands are thoughtless,\nselfish, or when they have made a bad choice, a miserable married\nlife is the result. In a great number of young households happiness\nprevails, thanks to the strong-mindedness and tact of the young wife,\nwho can take care of herself and of her husband also. But thousands of\nmarriages turn out utter failures, not for want of love, but from the\nhusband\u2019s utter ignorance of how to take care of his wife\u2019s health,\nbeauty, and happiness.\n\nThough it is the fashion in this country not to adapt but to translate\nliterally Ibsen\u2019s pieces, there would be no difficulty to so adapt them\nas to render them exact representations of the state of many an English\nhome. And this is sufficient to explain his fame in England. Here,\nas on the continent, it is the selfish, mean, bullying husbands who\ncannot find any sense in Ibsen\u2019s pieces, and who are extremely shocked\nat what they consider Ibsen\u2019s perversion in attempting to enlist, by\ninexplicable devices, the sympathies of the audience for the erring\nwife, when these should be vouchsafed to the husband, who appears to be\nsuch a respectable, common-sense man.\n\nWhen Ibsen thus calls attention to the importance and the gravity of\nthe feeling of revolt which has long rankled in the minds of thinking\nwomen all over the world, and which manifested itself long before\nIbsen\u2019s pieces were known outside Norway, he cannot fairly be said\nto be responsible for the growing discontent. In reality, he has\nrendered the world a great service: for the new views and aspirations\nof modern educated women can neither be suppressed nor ignored without\nconsiderable danger to society.\n\nIn order to understand that the demand for the purification of\nmarriage is not a transitory whim, it will suffice to consider who\nmade the marriage laws, and, what is more important, who inaugurated\nthe traditional views concerning them. Men alone did. Not the young\nmen, who would be largely swayed by the yearning for true love and\nby chivalrous considerations, but the law-makers of old; that is to\nsay, elderly men of influence and fortune. In the olden times, when\nthe foundations of social customs were laid, the rights of women\nwere considerably less respected than in our days; and under such\ncircumstances the law-makers did not feel called upon to consider woman\nto any large extent, but made laws and introduced customs which suited\nthemselves. What they wanted was, firstly, to marry young and beautiful\nwives, despite all objections that might be raised against their\nage, their looks, or their characters, and without much troublesome\ncourtship; and, secondly, to keep their young wives in subjection by\nsheer force and legal compulsion.\n\nIt is not reasonable to suppose that the fair sex should submit for\never to such treatment, and, as the women in the English-speaking\ncountries have already gained large concessions, it is natural that\ntheir sisters in the rest of the civilized world should struggle for\nreform.\n\nIt is therefore difficult to see why Nordau should consider Ibsen\u2019s\ninfluence so dangerous to society as to deem it necessary to hold him\nup as a degenerate. The enigma becomes more puzzling when we find that\nNordau frankly allows that Ibsen has great merits and great talents.\nHe says, for instance: \u201cHenrik Ibsen is a poet of great verve and\npower.\u201d \u201cHe has the gift of depicting in an exceptionally lifelike\nand impressive manner that which has excited his feelings.\u201d \u201cHe has\nthe capacity for imagining situations in which the characters are\nforced to turn inside out their inmost nature, in which abstract ideas\ntransform themselves into deeds, and moods of opinion and of feeling,\nimperceptible to the senses but potent as causes, are made patent to\nsight and hearing in attitudes and gestures, in the play of feature,\nand in words.\u201d \u201cHe knows how to group events into living frescoes\npossessing the charm of significant pictures... not like Wagner, with\nstrange costumes and properties, architectural splendour, mechanical\nmagic, gods and fabulous beasts, but with penetrating vision into the\nbackground of souls and the conditions of humanity.... But he does not\nallow the imagination of the spectator to run riot in mere spectacles;\nhe forces them into moods, he binds them by his spell in circles of\nideas, through the pictures which he unrolls before them.\u201d \u201cThe power\nwith which Ibsen, in a few rapid strokes, sketches a situation, an\nemotion, a dim-lit depth of the soul, is very much higher than his\nskill, so much extolled, of foreshortening in time... Each of the terse\nwords which suffice him has something of the nature of a peep-hole,\nthrough which limitless vistas are obtained. The plays of all peoples\nof all ages have few situations at once so perfectly simple and so\nirresistibly affecting.\u201d\n\nFurther on he again says: \u201cIt must be acknowledged that Ibsen has\ncreated some characters possessing a truth to life and a completeness\nsuch as are not to be met with in any poet since Shakespeare... None\nthe less no poet since the illustrious Spanish master (Cervantes) has\nsucceeded in creating such an embodiment of plain, jolly, healthy\ncommon-sense, of practical tact without anxiety as to things eternal,\nand of honest fulfilment of all proximate, obvious duties without a\nsuspicion of higher moral obligations, as this Gina.... Hjalmar also\nis a perfect creation, in which Ibsen has not once succumbed to the\ncogent temptation to exaggerate, but has exercised most entrancingly\nthat \u2018self-restraint\u2019 in every word which, as Goethe says, \u2018reveals the\nmaster.\u2019\u201d\n\nWe have quoted somewhat lengthily from this eulogy of Ibsen in order\nto render justice both to him and to Nordau. There is no passage in\nNordau\u2019s book which displays more insight into dramatic art and a more\nintelligent appreciation of some of the subtle but marvellous merits of\nIbsen\u2019s plays. We should not have thought it possible that so keen an\nappreciation could have been formed without seeing Ibsen\u2019s pieces acted\nin the original language. This eulogy becomes all the more valuable\nwhen we remember that it emanates from one of Ibsen\u2019s opponents\u2014from\na man who would fain restrain Ibsen from writing at all, and who\nevidently has not paid any attention to the slow but important social\nstruggle which Ibsen so frequently illustrates.\n\nMost people who have read these and other acknowledgments on the part\nof Nordau of Ibsen\u2019s talent, will be struck with the reckless manner\nin which Nordau defeats his own object. He wishes to warn the world\nagainst \u201cdegenerates\u201d of Ibsen\u2019s type, and at the same time praises him\nas few writers have been praised, seemingly without considering that in\nthis manner he inspires thousands of young writers with the ambition to\nbe degenerates as Ibsen is.\n\nTo the average reader Nordau suggests the idea of the impossibility\nof reconciling so much power, genius, talent, and craftsmanship with\ndecayed mental faculties. This all the more as Ibsen\u2019s pieces are\nfinancial successes, and he consequently shows a solid capacity for\nthe management of his own affairs, which, as Nordau has already told\nus, and every alienist would tell us, is the safest test of a sound\nbrain. The conclusion seems inevitable that Nordau is either utterly\nwrong when he sees all these merits in Ibsen\u2019s work, or else when he\nconsiders him to be degenerate.\n\nIn examining the grounds on which Nordau strives to establish his\ntheory of degeneracy we shall no doubt find that the latter alternative\nis the true one.\n\nNordau first impeaches Ibsen\u2019s reputation for realism, but takes\nthis term in its most literal sense. The stage has its limitations,\nand the dramatist must have a certain licence in the creating of\nhis situations. Ibsen is not called a realist because all that he\nrepresents on the stage is in closer conformity with reality than the\nrepresentations of practically any other dramatist ever were, but\nbecause his characters, besides being individually true to nature, are\ntypes\u2014strongly coloured types, it may be, but not too strongly coloured\nto be understood by an average audience. In a piece not intended to be\nplayed the characters may be more delicately moulded, but when they\nare to be grasped in a few flashes before the footlights they must,\nlike the statue intended for an elevated position, be hewn in bold\nproportions.\n\nIn order to show how unreal Ibsen is, Nordau asks whether it is\nprobable that the joiner, Engstrand (in _Ghosts_), wishing to open\na tavern for sailors, should call upon his own daughter to be the\nodalisque of his \u201cestablishment.\u201d By using the word \u201codalisque,\u201d and\nby placing the word \u201cestablishment\u201d between inverted commas, he gives\na distorted idea of the tavern Engstrand is going to open. It is a\nquestion of a real tavern, not of an \u201cestablishment.\u201d Girls in similar\ntaverns in Norway are of course exposed to temptations and sometimes to\ninsults, but they are by no means necessarily unchaste. In selecting\nthe employment in the tavern, Ibsen succeeds in giving an insight into\nthe Philistine character of Engstrand, who for the sake of money would\nrisk his daughter\u2019s reputation, but who could always fall back on the\nexcuse that he did not intend to ruin her.\n\nNordau may be right when he says that no Paris doctor would have told\nOswald Alving in _Ghosts_ that he had softening of the brain. But Ibsen\ndoes not say \u201csoftening of the brain\u201d; he makes Alving say \u201ca kind\nof softening of the brain,\u201d an expression which might very well be\nOswald\u2019s interpretation of what the doctor had told him in very guarded\nwords. Moreover it is not as an alienist that Ibsen has gained his\nfame; it is as a dramatist.\n\nNordau quotes as another example of unreality, the sense in which the\nterm \u201csociety\u201d is used by the characters in the _Pillars of Society_.\nThis is an error into which Nordau has evidently been led by reading\na bad German translation of the piece. Ibsen\u2019s characters do not\nmean \u201csocial edifice,\u201d as Nordau pedantically will have it, but the\nwell-to-do people in the community.\n\nAgain, he thinks that excuse very unreal which Berneck gives to his\nforeman, whom he has not taken into his confidence. But this unreality\nis precisely what Ibsen wishes the public to see, and he has evidently\nnot accentuated the unreality sufficiently, as this has escaped even\nNordau. Nordau does not find the speech of Pastor R\u00f6rlund realistic\nenough. The fact is that the speech is a delightful parody, in no way\nexaggerated, of those addresses which toadying sycophants all the world\nover are in the habit of delivering to a magnate whom they desire to\npropitiate. Any one who has heard such a speech in Norway will be\namusedly surprised by its comic realism.\n\nIt would be tiresome to go minutely into the proofs of unreality\nNordau finds in Ibsen\u2019s pieces, and the bare mention of the following\nexamples will suffice to show the futility of his attempt. He considers\nit impossible for a man of forty-three to inspire love, and this in\nNorway, where people develop and ripen so slowly. He thinks it unreal\nfor an excitable girl to describe as a storm on the sea the passion\nwhich induces her to encourage her rival\u2019s suicide, and then when\nthe rival is out of the way patiently to devote a year and a half\nto gaining the love for which her sin was committed. Our alienist,\nwho displays throughout his book an utter lack of the sense of the\nridiculous, finds the scene between Ellida, Wangel, and the Stranger\nin _The Lady from the Sea_ ridiculous, a scene which thousands of\naudiences have followed in breathless silence and with deep emotion.\n\nThe puzzle is why Nordau is so anxious to show that Ibsen is not a\nrealist, and how his not being a realist can possibly be construed into\nan argument in favour of his insanity. Are then all the people who, as\na matter of taste or as a matter of business, supply the public with\nunrealistic dramas to be considered more or less demented? If this is\nthe case, what becomes of the mental sanity of Nordau\u2019s great model,\nGoethe, the author of the intensely unreal _Faust_?\n\nReferring to the theory of heredity, frequently alluded to in Ibsen\u2019s\nworks, Nordau says he cannot preserve his gravity when Ibsen displays\nhis scientific or medical knowledge. Here again we are tempted to refer\nto the sandal-maker and the sandal-strings; but there is actually no\noccasion to do so, because Ibsen displaying his medical knowledge is a\npicture conjured up by Nordau\u2019s own imagination. We do not know what\nIbsen does in his private life, but in his dramatic works he does not\ndisplay his medical knowledge. What suits Nordau\u2019s purpose to give\nas Ibsen\u2019s opinions are the opinions of his characters, who, being\ntrue to nature, speak as their prototypes in reality speak. It suits\nIbsen\u2019s dramatic purposes to make use of certain views on heredity,\nand he is all the more entitled to do so as such opinions are very\nprevalent nowadays, and not without exercising a considerable influence\non people\u2019s minds. Ibsen may have exactly the same opinion as his\ncharacters give expression to, or he may think the very opposite,\nbut those who thoroughly understand Ibsen\u2019s method will be convinced\nthat he would not commit the mistake, so common among dramatists, of\nallowing his characters to reflect the author\u2019s personality. When\nRegina, in _Ghosts_, in reply to Mrs. Alving, who is harping on\nheredity, says, \u201cWhat must be, must be... I take after my mother I dare\nsay,\u201d she does not express Ibsen\u2019s opinion about heredity, but that\nfatalistic notion which is unfortunately extremely common among women,\nespecially when in trouble or at fault, and a reference to her mother\nis only a confirmation of her fatalistic belief, at which she clutches\nthat she may rid herself of her responsibility.\n\nIf we must look for a tendency in Ibsen\u2019s works, it might be found in\nhis attempt to show up this generally prevailing weakness in will and\ncharacter which Nordau himself finds everywhere and which he calls\ndegeneration. Regina, as well as Oswald, are \u201cfrightful examples\u201d of\nthis weakness, and in placing them on the stage Ibsen has the same\nobject as Nordau, namely, to exhibit a deplorable defect in modern\nsociety. Ibsen may therefore be looked upon as Nordau\u2019s co-operator,\nand even precursor, because Ibsen\u2019s characters are types of that very\ndegeneration which Nordau desires to combat. In fact, the importance\nthat our alienist attaches to Ibsen\u2019s characters suggests the idea\nthat if there were no Ibsen there would be no Nordau. By the aid of an\nextremely confused and distorted reasoning, he condemns Ibsen for that\nvery weakness which he, like Nordau, has discovered in modern society\nand incarnated in his characters as a warning to his contemporaries.\n\nIf we had not a strong objection to the _tu quoque_ argument, and were\nnot resolved to avoid it, we could here say a great deal about Nordau\u2019s\ncondemnation of Ibsen\u2019s supposed illogical references to heredity,\nwhile Nordau himself yields to the temptation of using the absurdest\nlogic in order to discover supposed proofs in favour of his own pet\ntheories.\n\nEven supposing that Ibsen did believe in heredity, is he not in harmony\nwith his time? One does not require to be an alienist or a biologist\nto understand that the Darwinian theory of evolution is the theory of\nheredity; and one does not require to be very old to have observed\nthat the characteristics of parents often repeat themselves in their\nchildren. In his criticism of Ibsen, Nordau seems to go too far when\nhe casts discredit on the theory of heredity, with regard to which he\nhimself goes to an extreme when he attributes to heredity the lurking\nbelief in a personal God in the inmost recesses of the consciousness of\ncertain scientists. The manner in which he refers to little Hedwig\u2019s\nblindness will certainly induce his readers to infer that he himself\ndoes not believe in cases of hereditary blindness\u2014an affliction\nwhich has however come within the knowledge of many. Nordau, in his\npurposeless eagerness to tear Ibsen down from his pedestal, seems to\nimagine that he would further his object if he could show that Ibsen\nis influenced by the religion of his childhood, of his youth, and of\nhis country. To be influenced by such religion has been the case with\nmany sane people of strong mind, especially in countries where the\nmorality implanted in young children is based entirely on religious\ninstruction. Even when a man ceases to believe literally all that has\nbeen taught him, it is natural that his religious thoughts should mould\nthemselves on the early impressions, which then become symbols instead\nof fact. This is especially natural with people whose walk in life has\nprecluded them from giving that absorbing attention to psychology and\nbiology which to a sound mind is indispensable before it can master,\nor believe, the scientists\u2019 theories of \u201cmechanical causality,\u201d and\nthe annihilation of the conscious _Ego_. Nordau, like many other\nscientific enthusiasts, seems to labour under the impression that all\nthe loud-voiced people, who affect complete irreligiosity, and who pose\nas free-thinkers, are really convinced that the scientific discovery\nof yesterday, which might be upset by the discovery of to-morrow,\nsufficiently explains the world and themselves. This is far from being\nthe case. How often when we scratch the atheist do we not find the\nsuperstitiously devout. How many men could be found in the world who\nare so capable of satisfying all their curiosity regarding the unknown\nby scientific theories that they might be quoted in support of the\nartificiality of religious instincts? They would certainly number very\nfew. And yet scientists of Nordau\u2019s stamp are apt to regard such men as\nthe only really sane ones, and the rest of humanity as to some extent\ndegenerate.\n\nBut how does Nordau know anything about Ibsen\u2019s religious opinions? He\nsimply studies the characters in Ibsen\u2019s pieces and takes for granted\nthat Ibsen must necessarily hold the same opinions as his characters.\nThis absurd assumption, indispensable to his purpose, leads him\nsometimes into ridiculous dilemmas from which he escapes in a not less\nridiculous manner. When he finds that Ibsen has _dramatis person\u00e6_ of\ndiametrically opposed opinions and beliefs, he does not know which\nof them represents Ibsen\u2019s opinions and Ibsen\u2019s beliefs. Determined\nnot to notice the simple fact that none of them represent Ibsen\u2019s\nviews, he falls back on the expediency of declaring that, because his\ncharacters differ, Ibsen does not know his own mind, a fact which in\nour alienist\u2019s view points to degeneracy.\n\nHe quotes copiously from Ibsen\u2019s pieces in order to show that those\ncharacters who have committed evil deeds, without having resigned\nthemselves to being utterly bad, yearn for confession. From this\nwe must conclude that Nordau considers a longing for confession in\nthose who have sinned as an obsession and as pertaining to stigmata\nof degeneration. To make capital out of this, Nordau sticks hard to\nhis assumption that Ibsen\u2019s object is to preach some kind of creed by\nproclaiming his own opinions through his characters. Few people in the\nworld really know what Ibsen\u2019s final object and real aims are; but his\nimmediate object, it will be granted, is to show his contemporaries\nwhat they really are, and so sternly and so cogently does he pursue\nthis object that, while other dramatists show their spectators the\ndefects of others, Ibsen lays bare their own.\n\nIn showing sinners\u2019 yearnings for confession, Ibsen could not therefore\nbe wrong unless a longing for confession in sinners is unreal or\nunusual. Far from being unusual, we find it in almost every human\nbeing, from the innocent child down to the brutal criminal. The police\nand law-court reports in England frequently relate cases in which\nmen and women confess crimes which would never have been discovered,\nsimply to satisfy a conscience yearning for confession. We have nothing\nto do here with the question as to whether this first step towards a\nbetter life is longed for in obedience to an instinct implanted in the\nemotional nature of man by a Creator, or whether it is the consequence\nof an inherited tendency originated by religious teaching and moral\ncivil laws. We have only to deal with the fact that the conscience of\nall evil-doers, and especially of those who are willing to abandon\nevil and return to good, prompts them to confess. Nordau has only to\nconsult a Catholic priest in order to learn how strong and general this\nyearning is.\n\nIt must also be remembered that confession, if not to priests yet to\nGod, is part of the Lutheran creed prevailing in Norway, and that\nconsequently confession is regarded by the people as the test of\ntrue repentance. Though auricular confession is not a sacrament in\nthe Lutheran Church, the Norwegian ministers could tell Nordau how\noften sinners and criminals ease their consciences by confessing to\nthem. It is hardly possible to write a serious dramatic piece without\nrepresenting a struggle between good and evil. And how then could Ibsen\nwrite dramas true to Norwegian life, without instancing that yearning\nfor confession which is the outward sign of the inward struggle between\ngood and evil?\n\nNordau instances the French assassin Avinain, who before being\nguillotined gave out as his life\u2019s motto \u201cNever confess,\u201d as an example\nof a strong and healthy mind\u2014or, at least, he regards this motto as one\nwhich only a strong and healthy mind can follow. On the other hand, he\nregards confessing men as men \u201cin whom the mechanism of inhibition is\nalways disordered, and who therefore cannot escape from the impulse to\nconfess when anything of an absorbing or exciting character exists in\ntheir consciousness.\u201d\n\nIn this comparison Nordau omits the chief factor\u2014the religious opinion,\nor the philosophy which necessarily determines whether the confession\nis a sign of strength or weakness. If the murderer Avinain was a\nconfirmed atheist, and if his emotional nature was such as to glorify\nmurder, then he had no impulse to confess, and consequently required no\nstrength of mind to resist confession. If the man who glories in what\nis good\u2014or, to use an expression of Nordau\u2019s, who has social instincts,\nand consequently believes that confession is his duty and an heroic\naction\u2014should shun the ordeal and prefer to spend the rest of his life\nas a self-despising hypocrite, this would be weak-mindedness. Of course\nNordau may always argue that to believe in the good and in personal\nresponsibility is in itself a sign of degeneration. But this would be\nsimply to place the question on another plane, where we have already\ndiscussed it.\n\nWhat is said here about confession applies equally to what Nordau says\nabout redemption. It is not, as he states, an obsession of Ibsen\u2019s, but\na symbol very natural to a people of strong religious feelings. His\ncharacters could not possibly express their ideas and their emotions\nin any other way than that in which they have been in the habit of\nthinking all their lives.\n\nNordau cannot rid himself of the obsession that the dramatist must\nnecessarily take a side in the squabble between religion and science,\nand between the devotees of different social panaceas, and seems\nexasperated because he cannot get at Ibsen\u2019s real opinion on such\nquestions. When he persists in his egregious error of taking the\nopinions of Ibsen\u2019s characters as those of Ibsen, his mind gets into\na maze, which leads him to the conclusion that it is Ibsen\u2019s mind,\nnot his own, that has got into a confused state. It is very common to\nfind a man, who, by dint of study or by natural talent, has become an\nauthority on one subject, so far losing his power of self-criticism as\nto believe himself a universal genius, capable of dogmatizing on every\nsubject under the sun. It is this conceit that induces successful\nmen to imagine that their natural specialty is not that one which has\nrendered them famous, but some other specialty for which in reality\nthey have no aptitude whatever. A successful comedian believes himself\nto be hardly dealt with because he is not acknowledged as a tragedian.\nA musician considers himself an authority on the drama. The poet thinks\nhe ought to have been a politician. Biologists imagine they would shine\nas social reformers.\n\nIt is because Ibsen has not yielded to this weakness, because he has\nnot the conceit to lay down the law on questions outside his own\nprovince, but simply aspires to be a dramatist, that Nordau complains\nso bitterly of Ibsen\u2019s omission to express a distinct opinion on all\nsorts of subjects on which Nordau burns to break a lance with him. He\ntilts against the opinions expressed by Ibsen\u2019s characters with the\nwasted fury of Don Quixote attacking windmills.\n\nWe are at a loss to account for the contradictions of which Nordau\nappears to be guilty. Much of what he says in the latter part of his\nessay on Ibsen is in direct contradiction to what he says in the\nearlier part, where his praise of Ibsen\u2019s talents and abilities is\nconspicuous. We will give an example of what we mean. He says at the\nbeginning of his chapter: \u201cEach of the terse words which suffice him\n[Ibsen] has something of the nature of a peep-hole, through which\nlimitless vistas are obtained.\u201d Towards the end of it he says: \u201cThus\nIbsen\u2019s drama is like a kaleidoscope in a sixpenny bazaar. When one\nlooks through the peep-hole, one sees at each shaking of the cardboard\ntube new and parti-coloured combinations. Children are amused at this\ntoy, but adults know that it contains only splinters of coloured glass,\nalways the same, inserted haphazard and united into mystical figures by\nthree bits of looking-glass, and they soon tire of the expressionless\narabesque.\u201d\n\nCan this contradiction be the result of his great trust in authorities,\nand has he made use of two that clash, or does he write for writing\u2019s\nsake, differently each day according to the mood he happens to be in?\n\nWhen Ibsen\u2019s characters give expression to their yearnings for greater\npersonal liberty, for a revolt against social traditions which threaten\nto wreck their lives, and which they have beheld wrecking the lives of\nhundreds around them, they are intended by the dramatist to show what\nis going on in modern society. Nordau of course concludes that Ibsen is\nan egomaniac who resents any bonds on his worst instincts. Supposing\nthat Ibsen shares personally that same longing for more individual\nfreedom which Nordau so warmly deprecates, it is evident that they\ndiffer simply because Nordau starts from the supposition that men\u2019s\ninstincts are necessarily bad, and Ibsen from the supposition that they\nare good.\n\nThe fundamental difference in opinion mainly springs from the different\ncircumstances amongst which the two men have been born and brought up.\nThe German, who has all his life been impressed with the necessity of\nofficialism and police government, who has lived under the impression\nthat his castle would be attacked by a lower caste when free to follow\nits inclinations, would naturally attach great importance to existing\ninstitutions. If he at the same time be illogical enough to sap at the\nroot of that great order-producing institution\u2014religion\u2014and beholds\nthat this safeguard is becoming more and more unreliable, he naturally\nlooks for something to take its place.\n\nThe German social system, so unjust to the working classes, has\nnaturally embittered the people and enlisted a number of working men\ninto the revolutionary parties, and this growing army of so-called\nenemies to society naturally alarms the German middle-class man and\nprejudices him against the proletariat. Passions and destructive\ninstincts, instilled by long suffering, he is apt to regard as human\nnature from which the worst must be expected. This explains many\nof Nordau\u2019s contradictions. He wishes to abolish religion because\nits abolition would glorify science, but he wishes to retain the\nmarriage laws because he fears that without them an unspeakable state\nof immorality would ensue. He denies a divine plan in creation which\nmight account for the moral instinct in man, but he does not believe\nthat morality has sprung from the only remaining source, namely, man\u2019s\nexperience of the advantages of morality. His habit of bowing to\nauthorities causes him to believe that morality and a pure family life\nare the result of the marriage laws, and not that the marriage laws are\nthe result of man\u2019s love of morality and of a pure family life.\n\nThe Norwegian is born and brought up in a country where liberty has\nbeen the basis and safeguard of moral order; where few police are found\nin the cities, and where, throughout vast tracts of country, man\u2019s good\ninstincts are the only police; where the peasant and working classes\nhave no desire or intention to attack the wealthy; where the people\nare religious because they are honest and not honest because they\nare religious; where self-esteem and justice would take the place of\nreligion were it to crumble. The Norwegian has noticed that the poor\nare more generous than the rich, that the people are more honest than\ntheir officials, that the free man and woman are more moral than the\ntied ones, and that liberty elevates and oppressive laws degrade. If\nthe Norwegian seems to attach little importance to legal marriage, it\nis because, in cleansing it from mercenary considerations and other low\nmotives, he hopes to base it on such foundations as moral instinct,\nlove, self-respect, honour, and possibly on religious belief, and\nthereby make it a life-long reality. It is not to gratify low instincts\nand licentious passions, as Nordau would have it, that he wishes for\nreform. He may be mistaken in his motives, but this is no excuse for\nattributing vile motives to him.\n\nNordau is not the only one who is puzzled by the many peculiarities\nof Ibsen\u2019s plays. Like him, many English theatre-goers wonder why\nhis best types and his leading characters, as a rule, are so void of\nnobility, fine feeling, and high principles; why he always places his\nscenes in small towns, and not among the romantically wild country\nand the picturesque peasants, as Bj\u00f6rnsen and Jonas Lie have often\ndone; why he represents the so-called respectable and official classes\nin so unfavourable a light; why his women seem to be morally and\nintellectually superior to his men.\n\nIn order to elucidate these questions and many other peculiarities\nin Ibsen\u2019s plays and characters, as well as some of the reasons why\na German critic should disapprove of Ibsen, it should be remembered\nthat in Norway two cultures have met and struggled\u2014the German and\nScandinavian\u2014but have not blended.\n\nOf the Scandinavian nations, the Norwegians may be considered as the\nextreme type. While they differ from the Danes and Swedes considerably,\nthey differ still more from the Germans. Their characteristics arise\nnot only from race, but largely from surroundings and modes of life.\nThe genuine Norwegian people have of old lived scattered over a vast\narea of country, separated by high fjelds and broad fjords, foaming\ntorrents and dense woods, only sparingly communicating with each other,\nand still less with strangers, and hearing little of the outside world,\nthey have grown into a silent, thinking, and deep-feeling nation.\nThey have inherited from the old Viking times an unquenchable love of\nliberty, and all their institutions, their customs, their principles,\nhave developed in freedom, and such virtues as they have and of\nwhich they are most proud, are the outcome of personal independence.\nAccustomed to personal danger on the snow-clad mountain-paths, in the\nvast forests, and in small open boats upon the stormy fjords, they\nhave acquired an extraordinary degree of self-reliance. Unused to,\nand distrustful of, foreign ways, and seldom successful in foreign\ncountries, they harbour an intense love of Norway and for anything\nNorwegian; and while they may conceitedly think that everything that\nis Norwegian is great and noble, they certainly endeavour to put a\nstamp of nobility and greatness on everything that is Norwegian. They\nare proud, generous, loyal, hospitable, and can never be persuaded\nthat lowly circumstances or poverty could possibly be an excuse for an\nunroyal conduct.\n\nBorn and bred amid snow-capped mountains, deep valleys, perpendicular\nrocks, a jagged, stormy coast\u2014the whole wearing an air of solemn\nand lonely grandeur\u2014the Norwegians are a meditative and highly\nimaginative people. The stirring natural phenomena peculiar to the\ncountry cannot fail to stimulate their imagination. The snow-storms,\nthe ice-avalanches, the light summer nights, the brilliant moonlight\ndiffused over the abrupt mountains, the dark forests and the glittering\nfjords, the raging storms from the Atlantic, the flaming midnight\nwinter skies, the sunsets which so wondrously illumine the whole\ncoast-line\u2014such scenes, such pictures, sink into their minds and\nquicken their emotions.\n\nWhat wonder, then, if they are full of folk-lore and the supernatural\nhas for them an irresistible charm? They are superstitious, and believe\nthat their actions and lives are influenced by gnomes, fairies, and\ntrolls. Old heathen ceremonies for the propitiation of the spirits are\nstill in vogue. They are deeply moved by music and poetry, and have a\nstrong predilection for all that is heroic and great.\n\nIt is not surprising that in German translations of Norwegian\nwritings\u2014for which Nordau blames Ibsen\u2019s degeneracy\u2014adjectives should\nhave taken a new meaning; for in Norway they have been influenced by\nnature\u2019s grandeur. When Norwegians say \u201cgreat,\u201d they mean great as the\nfjeld, great as the boundless ocean; when they say \u201csilent,\u201d they mean\nsilent as the wood in the short summer night. Consequently, when a\nman, an action, a thing, is described to them, they are apt to measure\nit by the standard of nature\u2019s extremes around them. They are always\ndisappointed when they behold the wonders of civilization described to\nthem as great and wonderful. They would call the ruins of the Coliseum\nmean, and think no more of the pyramids than of ant-hills. Their ideas\nof a great man could probably never be realized, and their wonder is\nconsiderable at finding the mighty lords of England so unlike demi-gods.\n\nIt was the Hanseatic League that brought this stern and haughty people\ninto contact with German culture. This remarkable federation of\nenterprising German merchants discovered that profits could be made out\nof the rough products of Norway, and they founded a German colony in\nBergen, which rose to considerable importance. German traders gradually\nsettled in all the other important Norwegian centres, and the whole\ncommercial life of Norway became more or less Germanized.\n\nAt the time Germany was far ahead of Norway in everything appertaining\nto industry, and was already then bent on doing business with foreign\ncountries by offering them a mass of German manufactured goods of\nattractive appearance, but of little value, and not indispensable\nto a people like the Norwegians. Competition was already severe in\nGermany, money had acquired an immense importance, success in life\nwas most easily attained by intense application to business, saving,\nand grinding. The German traders stood in the same relation to the\nNorwegians as that in which English traders stand to the native races\nwhom they first approach for business purposes. The traders and agents\nwho went as far as Norway\u2014a long distance before the days of steamers\nand railways\u2014were daring and reckless men, bent upon making money,\njust as the pioneers of British commerce were and are in Africa. What\ninterested them was not the great and noble aspect of the Norwegian\ncharacter, but the desire on the part of these people to buy gewgaws,\nand the facility with which they parted with their money and their\ngoods.\n\nThough Norway is a poor country, it yielded to the not over-ambitious\nGermans a satisfactory harvest, and a great number of them settled\npermanently in the Norwegian towns. They became sufficiently numerous\nand influential to impress a German stamp on Norwegian urban life, on\nthe people who worked and lived with them; and these became Germanized\nto no small extent.\n\nThese middle-class Germans were no doubt excellent, respectable people\nin their way, but they had little in common with the Norwegian country\nfolk. They were better educated, they had more worldly wisdom, their\nexperience in their own cities had trained them to subject their\nemotional nature to their intellect. In order to push on to success in\ntheir German communities, where antagonistic and powerful magnates left\nbut little scope for daring and straightforwardness, they had learned\nto value diplomacy and discretion.\n\nThey had no sympathies with the natives, whom they regarded as\nsemi-barbarians, and all their intercourse with them was diplomatic and\ninsincere, and their sole motive was profit. The honesty, the pride,\nthe generosity of the Norwegian peasantry were well known to them, but\nthey took advantage of these characteristics, which they regarded as\nexpensive luxuries.\n\nThe cities however became the seats of the educational establishments,\nand the Norwegian youth who were intended for the professions came to\nthe cities and mingled there with the German element. On the other\nhand, the sons of the citizens went into the country in professional\ncapacities and created there a middle class strongly impregnated with\nGerman culture. In this manner a sharp line of demarcation arose\nbetween the upper and middle classes on the one hand and the peasantry\non the other, the former being strongly influenced by German culture,\nthe latter clinging tenaciously to the Norwegian.\n\nIt is no slur on the German character and German culture to say that it\ninvolved degeneration in no small degree. It partook of the drawbacks\nof our civilization, and what happened in Norway has happened in every\ncountry where modern civilization has come into contact with nations\nwhose virtues and noble qualities have rested as much on ignorance and\nthe absence of temptation as on inborn worth. Thanks to the historical\ndevelopment we have indicated, the Norwegian upper and middle\nclasses, as well as the whole of the urban populations, developed\ncharacteristics which drew upon them the contempt of the peasants.\nTheir eagerness for profit, their love of money, their indifference\nto the great, the noble, and the beautiful, their cringing attitude\ntowards authorities and towards the wealthy, their sacrifice of public\ninterests to private welfare, their susceptibility to the influence of\nforeign fashion, manners, and vices,\u2014all this tended to lower the upper\nand middle classes in the eyes of the peasants.\n\nWhen the phenomenon witnessed in all civilized countries\u2014the\nimpoverishment of the masses\u2014made its appearance, public-spirited\nmen began to inquire as to the causes. It was in the middle of this\ncentury, when a spirit of revolution and reform was abroad, that the\nyearning for a better state of things began to manifest itself. There\nwere no aristocracy, no established Church, and no privileged class to\nblame for the unsatisfactory state of the country, and consequently\nthe investigators turned their attention to the ethical condition of\nthe people themselves. Comparison between the olden and the modern\ntimes was instituted. The discrepancy between the two classes became\nstriking, and the corrupting influences were traced to the towns. A\nstrong desire to revive and strengthen the old culture took possession\nof many men and women, who, though educated, had a keen sympathy with\nthe peasants. To found the future development of Norway on the basis of\nthe old Norwegian culture became the object of a new national party,\nincluding some of the best elements of the Norwegian nation. These\nenthusiasts found their expression in composers like Tjerulf, and in\nthe writings of men like Bj\u00f6rnstjerne Bj\u00f6rnsen, Jonas Lie, and Ibsen.\n\nThe greatest mistake of these writers\u2014the one that has entirely escaped\nNordau\u2014is their belief that a nation can realize its best aspirations\nby methods that have utterly failed in the celestial empire of China.\nThe hope of preserving the grand feature of the old Norwegian culture\nby exclusiveness, by isolating Norway, and by offering a stubborn\nresistance to foreign influence, be it good or bad\u2014in this they\nhave set themselves an impossible task. A thorough national life and\ndevelopment produced by such artificial means would, even if attended\nby the highest degree of success, partake of a theatrical nature. The\nmore it succeeded, the more it would attract foreigners, and features\nwhich in olden times sprang from the character of the people and from\nnatural circumstances, would fall into the line of carnivals organized\nat the expense of the municipalities and of railways to Alpine summits.\n\nThese Norwegian enthusiasts have yet to learn that though foreign\ntourists, foreign literature, and foreign art place temptations in the\nway of their single-minded nation, there are in every country large\nnumbers of people who fight for progress as sedulously as themselves,\nand whose co-operation would outweigh the dangers of European\nmodernity. In the old culture, in the past life of nations, especially\nin nations like Norway, there are great virtues and noble features\nwhich may well serve as a goal. But to again render them a reality, to\nbase them on lasting foundations, a people must pass through the fiery\ntrials of modern temptations, and, instead of yielding plastically to\noutward circumstances, must shape their destiny through sheer strength\nof character. What Norway has of good and noble she should give to\nother nations, and freely accept their best from them. This is an\nexchange which, like mercy, blesses both giver and receiver.\n\nThough the struggle against degeneration is, in Norway, hampered by the\nnational prejudices of the leaders, it is still progressing. Ibsen\u2019s\nmission in the fight is to ruthlessly expose the stagnant pools of\ncorruption. He finds them in the cities and among the middle class,\nwhere the old German Philistine features have been most distinctly\npreserved. Many of his characters bear German names, and those who\ntake the part of the traditional villain wear often the garb of that\nrespectable, common-sense, matter-of-fact, self-absorbed German whom\nNordau would exempt from any stigma of degeneration.\n\nThorvald Helmer, in _The Doll\u2019s House_, has, or would have, the\nsympathies of millions, not in Germany alone, but in England and\neverywhere, of people whose emotional nature, whose love for the high\nand noble, has been compressed by that worldly wisdom which in our\nlarge crowded cities becomes prudence, and to obey which is often a\nduty\u2014people who are not aware that it is not only possible, but even\neasy, to be both diplomatic and discreet in obedience to noble emotions\nand exalted aspirations, and that to root these out of our nature is\ndegeneration.\n\nHelmer, in his sleek reasonableness, is an excellent type of meanness,\nand his character is brought out in a consummately artistic way. It\nexasperates Nordau that this man, who comes so near his standard of\nsound-mindedness, should inspire in audiences all the world over,\nespecially in the female element, a sense of aversion, apparently\nwithout any effort on the part of the author. Helmer has a keen eye\nfor the main chance. His reputation and his position have his first\nconsideration. He trembles at the idea of fighting the world without\nthem. His love of his wife is the quintessence of selfishness. He\nloves her in the two only ways which Nordau thinks reasonable in a\nhuman being, as a companion, as a pleasant thing to toy with; and as\nthe female of his race, at such periods when he, as the normal man of\nNordau, is actuated by animal impulses\u2014for example, under the influence\nof champagne. Of the pure love for a woman which in a man\u2019s heart\nremains as a spring of living water, giving him a pang of joy each\ntime his thoughts revert to her, and which casts a rosy tint of poetry\nover life, nay even over death\u2014of such love Helmer is as incapable as\nNordau\u2019s normal man.\n\nNora yearns for the higher, nobler love, and her lack of experience in\ncharacter-study has left her in doubt, though in hope, regarding her\nhusband. The moment comes when she gains certitude; and when Helmer\nreveals himself in his Philistine hideousness, her spirit revolts.\n\nThough of course exaggerated for the sake of dramatic effect, she\nis a good type of an intelligent and emotional Norwegian woman.\nNorwegian girls receive a great deal of instruction, and as they have\nno professions to prepare for, their education is more literary and\nartistic than that of the men. They read voraciously the Norwegian\nmodern writers, and sympathize consequently more than the men with\nthe extreme nationalists. They are often strongly possessed by the\n_Aand_\u2014that indefinable yearning for all that is great and noble\u2014in\nNorwegian culture already alluded to. They have a fair knowledge of\nforeign literature, and read a great many English novels. With their\nadmiration for English pure love, for English home life, grafted on the\ngrand aspirations which the new _Aand_ fosters, they may well appear\nuncanny and troll-like to the prosaic German.\n\nWe trust that the struggle between the Norwegian and the German\ncultures, of which we have endeavoured to give an idea, will make it\neasier for students of Ibsen to understand his characters. It is in\n_The Doll\u2019s House_ where the two inimical cultures are most clearly\npersonified, the old Norwegian culture being represented by the\nuncompromising, impulsive, and intense Nora, and the imported German\nculture by the pedantic, commonplace, and animal Helmer.\n\nIf our interpretation is right, it is impossible that Ibsen\u2019s work\ncould in any way indicate degeneration. It ought, on the contrary,\nto be evident that his pieces, rendering objective as they do\nthe struggle for a higher and better life, based not on pedantic\nconsiderations of immediate and unworthy advantages, but on the noble\nimpulses of a strong and healthy nation, are at once a summons to rise\nhigher, and signals pointing the way.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\n_RICHARD WAGNER_\n\n\nWe all have met with people who, without being degenerates to any\ngreat extent repeat stories of their own invention so persistently,\nthat they end by believing in them. In this kind of folly, if folly\nit be, there is a great deal of method when indulged in by people\nwho are anxious, for some reason or another, that their views should\n_nolens volens_ be accepted by others. When one comes to deal with the\nintellectual development of a nation or a race, and wishes to prove\ncertain forms of progress or retrogression, it is half the battle\nto bring your opponent to believe in the existence of some special,\nwell-defined psychological phenomenon or social tendency, and to give\nit a high-sounding name. What would astrology have been without the\nhoroscope, or alchemy without the philosopher\u2019s stone? What would\nmodern statecraft be without such terms as \u201cforeign competition\u201d and\n\u201cinternational jealousy\u201d? What would German socialism be without the\nterm \u201crevolutionary socialism\u201d? What would bi-metallism be without\nthe phrase, \u201cthe stability of the currency\u201d? And what would Nordau\u2019s\ntheory of degeneration be without the \u201cmystic movement\u201d?\n\nHe takes for granted that there is such a thing as mysticism, as well\nas that it constitutes a movement, and then endeavours to explain\neverything as partaking of or resulting from it. According to him,\nWagnerism is the reappearance in Germany of that romanticism which\noriginated there, and afterwards travelled through France and England.\nIt reappeared, according to him, through Wagner\u2019s degeneration, and\nspread in virtue of the degeneration of his contemporaries. He says\nthat he finds in Wagner a greater abundance of degeneration than in\nall the other degenerates put together. \u201cThe stigmata of his morbid\ncondition,\u201d he says, \u201care united in him in the most complete and most\nluxuriant development.\u201d\n\nThis is a bold assertion, and will appear bolder yet to any one who\nhas read his chapter in _The Richard Wagner Cult_. Wagner\u2019s dislike\nof the Jews, which Nordau calls anti-semitism, and his views on\nsocial questions, which our alienist calls Anarchism, are pointed\nout as unfailing stigmata of degeneration. One of the methods of our\nalienist is to notice and make much of certain extreme opinions in\npeople who are actually made, or who have made themselves, intensely\nobjectionable, and then to point out that similar opinions and ideas\nare present in the mind of some celebrity, and then to draw the\nconclusion that this celebrity must be on the road to madness. Either\nhe does not see himself, or he trusts his readers will not see, that\nby such methods every man in the world might be proved to some extent\nderanged. He forgets that exaggerated virtues become vices, and that\nsome of the most prominent men in the world have had idiosyncrasies\nto which they have even given considerable play without at all coming\nwithin the range of degeneration.\n\nThe anti-semitism in Germany, which Nordau ascribes to\ndegeneration\u2014probably with the approval of the majority of Jews\u2014in that\ncountry, as well as in Russia, France, and the United States, springs\nfrom causes so patent, that no man who aspires to be considered an\nacute observer of his time should ignore them.\n\nLet us instance Russia first\u2014a country where the latest wave of\nanti-semitism first took a violent form. Can any one who is acquainted\nwith the typical financial history of the Russian villages wonder\nthat the Jews in Russia should be looked upon as a scourge? What has\nhappened in thousands of such villages is this. An energetic, clever\nJew settles amongst the Russian _moujiks_, who combine thriftlessness\nand love of an easy life with many of the good qualities and innocence\nof primitive races. The Jew is bent on making money, and caring little\nabout the opinion the community may form of him, and too brave to fear\ntheir enmity, he has no hesitation in taking up any kind of business,\nhowever unpopular it may render him. He willingly becomes a publican,\na pawnbroker, a land-grabber, and, in combination with other Jews, a\nspeculator and cornerer. His attention to business, his self-denial,\nhis hardheartedness to his customers, his knowledge of the tricks of\ntrades and finance, the ready support he gets from his co-religionists\nin other districts in carrying out his purposes, however derogatory\nthey may be to the community\u2014all this soon renders him the master of\nthe situation. The stranger, who at first in such a friendly spirit\ninvited his customer to drink his _vodka_ and borrow his money, is soon\ntransformed into a harsh tyrant who, by hook or by crook, came into\npossession of all the belongings of the villagers, and calmly makes\nuse of their destitution to extort from them their future earnings.\nThe Jews, as a rule, on the one hand, and the Russians on the other,\nform diametrically opposite views on this social phenomenon. The Jews\nsay, and Nordau evidently sides with them, that this successful village\ntyrant has done nothing to deserve blame. He has only been more frugal,\nmore thrifty, and more intelligent than the Russians, who were bound by\ntheir inferior character to go to the wall; and that if Russia hates\nthe Jews, it is with that hatred against successful men common in\nhuman failures.\n\nThe ruined Russian peasants simply know that the Jew who came among\nthem is rich and they are poor, that what used to be their possessions\nform his wealth, and that the means he has used to obtain it would not\nhave been used by them under any circumstances. They think they have\nbeen robbed, and that they and their descendants would be robbed by\nthe Jew and his descendants if they cannot be freed from him. Hence\nanti-semitism in Russia.\n\nNordau has no right to call the anti-semitists degenerate, even\nthough they be wrong in their logic, because he is wrong himself, and\nhe cannot point to ruined homes and wrecked lives as a substantial\nfoundation for his opinion.\n\nIn Germany the Jews play the same part, though under modified\nconditions. Though bad, German laws and German officialism are better\nthan those of Russia, and the German people do not so easily fall a\nprey to the strong-minded Jew. But, on the other hand, the Jews make\nthemselves obnoxious in other ways, both in Germany and Austria. Here\nthey act everywhere as trade-spoilers. The Jew undersells everybody. He\nstops short of nothing, save breaking the law, to extend his business.\nHe is obsequious to those in power and in wealth, but relentlessly\nhard to competitors and to creditors. Many of them will take the\ngreatest possible advantage of other people\u2019s, especially Christians\u2019,\nmisfortunes, and will gain their end by deliberately wounding other\npeople\u2019s feelings. It is the Jews who generally pay the lowest wages,\nand who are found in the ranks of the sweaters.\n\nWe hasten to state that there are in Germany a great many exceptions to\nthe types here referred to. But either they are not numerous enough, or\nthe Jew must possess some inability to show his better qualities, for\nno one acquainted with the circumstances in Germany would deny that the\nJew-haters there look upon their enemies in exactly the light we have\ndescribed.\n\nBut this is not all. Accusations are levelled against the Jews which\nare partly untrue, or else vastly exaggerated, and those who make them\nshould be called upon to prove their statements. Whether they may be\nable to do this or not, the fact remains that the Jew-hating Germans\nbelieve that the Jews have formed one vast conspiracy, the object of\nwhich is to secure for the Jews large advantages at the expense of the\nChristians. It is alleged that the methods employed are as follows: The\nJews are supposed to meet in secret conclave, in which those of them\nwho desire to accomplish any special aim state it to their brethren,\nwho then combine in assisting them. Such aims may be the possession\nof a house or a shop in the hands of a Christian, the ruin of some\nobnoxious competitor, the miscarriage of some public auction of goods\ncoveted by some Jew, and so on. With such ideas prevailing, how is it\npossible to ascribe Jew hatred to degeneracy? Such logic is all the\nmore surprising as it remains a palpable fact that the fortunes of the\nJewish houses are growing apace, that Jews seem to succeed no matter\nwhat they undertake, that they certainly are more charitable to their\nco-religionists than to Christians, and for that matter than Christians\nare to Christians, while at the same time poverty and misery are on the\nincrease among the Christian masses.\n\nNordau does a bad service to the Jews of Germany when he attempts\nto lay the blame for anti-semitism exclusively at the door of the\nChristians and calls them degenerates, while he entirely exempts the\nJews. This partiality, coupled with his contempt for the masses and his\nbelief in government by the more strong-minded men, points to a future\nstate in Germany in which the Jews should be the ruling aristocracy.\nHis unfairness thus, instead of abating the persecution against the\nJews, might easily be construed into an excuse for a more bitter\nanti-semitism.\n\nThis error of his is due to his besetting habit of taking his\npostulates from doubtful authorities and of drawing illogical\nconclusions. It is a common thing for men who have been successful\nin one branch of knowledge, and who are regarded as authorities in\na specialty by others, to jump at rash conclusions with regard to\nsubjects on which authorities differ or do not exist. This is exactly\nwhat Nordau does when he comes to consider facts which cannot be\nrightly understood without a clear insight into sociology and other\nsocial sciences. He then evinces impossible opinions, and gives us to\nunderstand that he has a ready-made scheme for reconstructing society\non a new and perfect plan.\n\nIt is not difficult to see what this plan is. It is quasi-Collectivism\nand Communism. He wishes the State to become the universal heir\nof all fortunes and the universal benefactor. The absurdity and\nimpracticability of this scheme\u2014which, by the way, is always the very\none that first enters the head of a young student who tackles social\nscience for the first time\u2014are obvious. As however he does not insist\nupon his scheme in his volume _Degeneration_, it would be out of place\nto explain its hollowness here. We have referred to it simply to show\nthat his superficiality regarding the anti-semitic question is not\nincidental. It will be evident to anybody who tackles this question\nwith an unprejudiced mind that the Christians in Russia and Germany are\nutterly at fault when they believe that they can escape from their\ntroubles by persecuting Jews, and also that the Jews are utterly at\nfault when they attribute anti-semitism to the jealousy and wickedness\nof the Christians. Both these parties, as well as Nordau himself,\nallow their feelings instead of their intelligence to determine these\nquestions. But they are not necessarily degenerate.\n\nThe true explanation of the imbroglio is as follows: The Jewish race,\nwhich might have acquired a few unpleasant characteristics by no fault\nof their own but through a cruel and unjust persecution for centuries,\nis a highly-gifted one, distinguishing itself by strong-mindedness,\ngreat will-power, remarkable powers of endurance, morality, and\nsingleness of purpose. Deprived, in a great number of countries\nof social rights and the privileges of citizenship, they have for\ncenturies found only one way open to them by which they could attain to\nindependence, security, and consideration\u2014the accumulation of wealth.\nIn modern times, when social institutions and laws tend to render\nwealth almost omnipotent, its acquisition has become to this people of\ngreater importance than ever. Success in a business, however small,\nmay mean millions in the future, while failure may result in life-long\nmisery. Consequently, the Jews apply themselves to their trades or\nprofessions with an energy and assiduity such as few races can command.\n\nThey therefore represent a power in the development of humanity\nwhich is bound to produce far-reaching effects. Whether these will\nconstitute a blessing or a curse to the nations among whom the Jews\nlive and work depends entirely on the institutions and the laws of\nthose countries. If these are such as to render the oppression of the\npoor, the workers, the borrowers, the tenants\u2014in fact, all the sections\nof society on which the Jews now batten,\u2014a condition for the thriving\nof the capitalists, the employers, the lenders, the tenants, and the\nfortunate classes in general\u2014if the laws are of this description, then\nthe Jews will be conspicuous as the oppressors of others. But if, on\nthe contrary, the laws and institutions of the countries are such as to\nrender the success of the upper classes and leaders of trade, industry,\nand finance dependent on the welfare of the workers, then the Jews will\nbe the most liberal lenders, the most generous employers, and the most\naccommodating landlords. In fact, the question resolves itself simply\ninto one of demand and supply; as long as there is a greater demand\nfor Jews\u2019 services than the Jews are able to supply, the latter will\ndominate; but when there are more services offered on the part of the\nJews than the people can avail themselves of, these can dictate terms\nto the Jews. And this relation of demand and supply depends on laws and\ninstitutions.\n\nEven if Nordau\u2019s prejudices prevented him from taking this view of\nthe anti-semitic question\u2014which is not only the correct one but which\ngreatly facilitates the solution of the question, and thus would\nprevent the disgraceful persecution which in many countries threatens\nto become more serious\u2014he might have found, by simply looking at the\nactualities, in the different countries that anti-semitism prevails\nin an inverse ratio to good government. He could not have asked for\na better proof of the fact that laws and institutions are at fault\nand not the Jews or the Christians. To take only the two extremes:\nin Russia, where the Government, from the people\u2019s point of view,\nis probably the worst in Europe, anti-semitism is most vehement; in\nEngland, where the Government is more influenced by the consideration\nof the good of the people than in any other country, there is scarcely\nany animosity against the Jews, and this in spite of the efforts of\ncertain politicians to promote it.\n\nThe reception of Dr. St\u00f6cker, when he attempted to address a public\nmeeting in London in favour of anti-semitism, would have convinced\nNordau, had he been present, what a poor chance anti-semitism has\nin a country where the working classes are free to follow those\ninstincts which Nordau fears so much. We may relate that hardly had\nthe proceedings begun when the hall was filled by labourers, who,\ncontrary to their habit on such occasions, had not changed their dress,\nand who hooted Dr. St\u00f6cker, stormed the platform, overpowered the\nanti-semitists, and cleared the hall.\n\nIn face of the fact that anti-semitic questions turn so entirely on\nprejudices and mistakes, one cannot surely accuse Wagner of madness\nbecause he sided with what may be called a national party, and approved\nof a movement the object of which was to stay the progressive influence\nof an alien race over the destiny of the Fatherland.\n\nIn several places in his work Nordau insists upon considering the\nanarchist tendencies of our age as among the stigmata of degeneration.\nIf he were right, we should be face to face with a calamity likely to\nend in the brutalization or the annihilation of our race. For Anarchism\nin some form of other is certainly spreading rapidly. That there is\nAnarchism and Anarchism seems of little importance to our alienist\nin his eagerness to draw his preconceived conclusions. He reasons\nas usual. Starting from the hypothesis that some of the criminal\nAnarchists were, to some extent, mentally deranged and morally weak,\nhe arrives at the conclusion that Wagner was a degenerate, because he\nshared to some extent with the Anarchists the hatred of our present\nsocial system and of the injurious effects it produces on the masses of\nthe people.\n\nThough Nordau dwells far more lengthily on poetry, and art, and cognate\nsubjects than on the graver question of Anarchism, there is no point on\nwhich it behoves us better to set him and his readers right than that\nof the relation between Anarchism and degeneration.\n\nThe Anarchist is not a cause. He is an effect. There is a feeling in\nthe consciousness of almost every human being, be he a believer in a\ndivine religion or in Nordau\u2019s religion of humanity, that our race is\ndestined to a high degree of development, and to a far larger sphere\nof happiness than now falls to the lot of most of us. This yearning\nfor happiness, for elevation, is not only a feeling but a conviction\nconsequent upon our knowledge of the past stages of the development of\nman.\n\nThere was a time when fervent religious beliefs induced patience and\nresignation under suffering, and when our future destiny was left in\nthe hands of Providence. But the French encyclop\u00e6dists, and after them\nthe modern scientists, have done their best to undermine this belief\nand to show us that the destiny of future generations will largely\ndepend upon us and themselves, that science is placing in our hands an\never-growing control over the forces of nature, and that if humanity\nsuffers it is because the present generation has not the moral courage\nto throw off religious scruples and boldly shape their own destiny.\n\nThese doctrines, in unison with the general progressive spirit of\nthe age, led to revolutions and political reforms. In the absence\nof a providence the nations shifted their faith to constitutional\ngovernments. But the new faith did not last long. The more democratic\nthe governments were the more they applied the principles of\nCollectivism\u2014they yielded to those instincts which Nordau calls the\nsocial instincts. Under the pretext of exercising paternal kindness\ntowards the people, the governments demanded paternal rights.\nCommunistic and socialistic ideas spread among the masses, who, well\naware that a providence without power would be no providence at all,\nwanted to render the State omnipotent. When however socialistic\nfeatures were introduced into the constitutions, matters did not mend,\nbut the freedom of the individual was more and more infringed.\n\nWhen detailed schemes of further socialistic development were made\npublic, a great many freedom-loving men and women beheld with terror\nthat the chief cause of the favour with which the progressing socialism\nwas regarded was to be found in the plan of complete subjection of the\nindividual under government.\n\nThis discovery naturally caused a reaction in favour of liberty. Those\nwho became Anarchists felt keenly the claws of the State upon them, and\nthey foresaw that more socialism would aggravate their grievances. They\ntook for granted that humanity had now tried all forms of government\nand that they had all failed, and that the salvation of the race could\nonly be found in absolute personal freedom.\n\nThe first extreme Russian Nihilists paved the way for the Anarchist\nmovement in Europe. They, like their first followers in France, had\nonly one idea, that of destroying at all costs the present order of\nthings, and thus clearing the ground for a new system to grow up\nfree from the tyranny of governments, aristocracies, militarism,\nlandlordism, and capitalism.\n\nThey saw that an immense mass of poor, hard-working, honest people\nwith but a small chance of happiness for themselves, but imbued with a\nstrong desire to see the whole of humanity happy, were oppressed by a\nsmall number of selfish people who arrogated to themselves the lion\u2019s\nshare of the good things of life. They found that this band of selfish\npeople attained to their immense power by a social system of slow and\ngradual growth. Tracing all the troubles to the few egotists whom they\nregarded as criminals, they imagined that by destroying them and the\nsystem, the unselfish and humanitarian aspirations of the masses would\nblossom forth free and unvitiated.\n\nThe Anarchists were thus the backbone of the religion of humanity, only\ntheir faith was stronger than that of Nordau, for they were willing to\nsacrifice all, including life, for the good of the race.\n\nIf these people were, and are, degenerate, then every mistake in\nreasoning is a sign of degeneration, and faith in humanity and its\ndestiny is the beginning of madness.\n\nWhen Nordau designates Wagner as an Anarchist, he evidently ignores\nthe fact that there are two kinds of Anarchists, the violent ones just\ndescribed, and the moderate or constitutional ones. The latter call\nthemselves simply Anarchists. Their numbers are growing rapidly in\nFrance, as well as in England, and in both these countries Nordau would\nbe surprised at their moderation and common sense. The movement they\nrepresent is a reaction against the socialistic tendencies, and their\nprogramme is not violence and destruction, but the gradual abolition of\nall harmful and useless legislation. It is true that so far they have\nno precise policy. But such special measures as are advocated\u2014partly\nin France, partly in England, and partly in the United States\u2014seem to\nbe founded on clear and thorough reasoning, and when their leading\nprinciple is compared with the shallow chatter of Socialists and\nCommunists of every school it appears as wisdom itself.\n\nWhat all these people believe, what they long for, and what they hope\nfor, is exactly what Wagner believed, longed for, and hoped for. He\nsaw in Philistinism, in official tyranny, in police government, and in\nlegal trammels standing in the way of trades, industries, and arts,\nso many impediments to the realization of the best instincts and the\nhighest aspirations of humanity. Whatever opinions he held, they can\nonly be judged by the few exasperated exclamations he gave vent to with\nregard to the corruption of modern society. It is not likely that he,\nwith such immense works on hand, should have given sufficient attention\nto social questions to allow him to express himself in learned terms.\nBut what he said and wrote on the subject shows clearly that the\nfoundation of his social views was trust in humanity, in the sanctity\nof nature, and in the ennobling power of liberty. Can any one with a\ntrue love of art imagine an artist without such a creed?\n\nWhat was more natural than that, f\u00eated and praised as he was, he should\nhave a good opinion of his own talent and consider himself a great man?\nIf for this he deserved to be suspected of megalomania, what are we to\nsay about other celebrities, mediocrities, and nonentities, who imagine\nthemselves demi-gods because they happen to be the sons of their\nfathers, to be born in purple, or to have a title attached to their\nname?\n\nNordau is extremely hard on those who have sung the praises of Wagner,\nand insinuates that they have been actuated by base motives when they\nhave not been absolutely degenerated. According to him, admiration\nfor Wagner\u2019s works is a sure sign of mental unsoundness. And yet this\nsame Nordau finds reasons for praising Wagner\u2019s genius which a host of\nhis panegyrists have overlooked. He says: \u201cWagner, as a dramatist is\nreally an historical painter of the highest rank.... This [a fresco\npainter] he is in a degree never yet attained by any other dramatic\nauthor in the whole world of literature. Every action embodies itself\nfor him in a series of most imposing pictures, which, when they are\ncomposed as Wagner has seen them with his inner eye, must overwhelm\nand enrapture the beholder. The reception of the guests in the hall of\nWartburg; the arrival and departure of Lohengrin in the boat drawn by\nthe swan; the gambols of the Rhine maidens in the river; the defiling\nof the gods over the rainbow-bridge towards the castle of Asgard;\nthe bursting of the moonlight into Hunding\u2019s hut; the ride of the\nWalk\u00fcre over the battle-field; Brunhilde in the circle of fire; the\nfinal scene in \u2018G\u00f6tterd\u00e4mmerung,\u2019 where Brunhilde flings herself on to\nher horse and leaps into the midst of the funeral pyre, while Hagan\nthrows himself into the surging Rhine, and the heavens are aflame with\nthe glow from the burning palace of the gods; the love-feast of the\nknights in the castle of the Grail; the obsequies of Titurel and the\nhealing of Amfortas\u2014these are pictures to which nothing in art hitherto\napproaches.\u201d\n\nIt is strange that Nordau in his love for authorities should quote\nNietzsche\u2014a German author whom, in another part of his book, he makes\nout to be a hopeless degenerate and charlatan\u2014in support of his views\nof Wagner! But Nietzsche has written a book called _Der Fall Wagner_,\nand that suffices. This Nietzsche calls Wagner a comedian, but Nordau\ninsists upon his being a painter, and that \u201cif he had been a healthy\ngenius, endowed with intellectual equilibrium, that is what he would\nundoubtedly have become. His inner vision would have forced the brush\ninto his hand, and would have constrained him to use it on canvas by\nmeans of colour.\u201d\n\nWhen Nordau says a painter, he evidently restricts the meaning of the\nword to its narrowest sense, and makes it difficult to at all class a\nman who, like Wagner, evolved and produced pictures of such grandeur\nand such beauty as those our alienist so well describes. The fact that\nthe artist uses actual perspective, real draperies, living people,\nactual fire, that he selects his own light, and personally arranges\nthis mass of objects so as to exactly reproduce the daring conception\nof his mind\u2014all this should surely not be cited as so many proofs\nof the unhealthiness of his genius. Would he have been a greater, a\nsounder genius, had his ability been restricted to sketching and\ncolouring his conceptions on cardboard or canvas? Should then a\npainter\u2019s genius be confined to the production of pictures suitable\nonly to decorate Philistine houses and official galleries? Because\nNordau\u2019s pedantic tendencies have formed such a Philistine idea about\nthe art of painting, is it right to deny true genius to a man who has\nproduced unapproachable pictures on a colossal scale, not by the means\nof brushes and pigments, but by materials infinitely more difficult to\nhandle?\n\nBut these masterpieces of painting do not alone bear witness to\nWagner\u2019s powers. His paintings are not fixed; they are movable. They\nrepresent actually an enchanting succession of pictures. The true\ngenius _\u00e0 la_ Nordau gives us the pictures of figures in motion that\nnever move, and tires us with a Quintus Curtius suspended in mid-air\nhalf way down a chasm, until we wish him at the bottom of it. Such a\nmoving picture of Wagner\u2019s is not thrust upon us suddenly in the manner\nof gallery pictures, but is presented to us as the fit illustration\nof a beautiful poem, and often as the climax of a series of other\npictures which explain it, relieve it, and work up our emotions for its\nreception.\n\nTo this must be added that the same painter-genius, the same dramatist,\nthe same poet, has created the wondrous and enchanting music which\naccompanies the poem and the pictures. And because he has done all\nthis, because he has not followed the routine of other German painters,\nbecause he has dared to and succeeded in transporting his audiences\ninto the highest possible region of imagination, and given them a\nglimpse of real creative powers, he is to be classed as a degenerate;\nto rank among those of whom humanity is ashamed, and whose degraded\nstate is to warn us of the coming decay of our race.\n\nCan any one with a grain of humour read Nordau\u2019s attacks on Wagner\nwithout imagining an irascible toy-terrier barking at the moon?\n\nNordau probably feels that Wagner\u2019s anti-semitism, his Anarchism,\nand his ability to create transcendentally beautiful pictures are\nstigmata which hardly any of his readers would accept as such, and\nconsequently feels impelled to make much of what it pleases him to\ncall Wagner\u2019s eroticism. Here, as everywhere in his book, in order\nto impress his readers he counts on the mystical effect which the\nuse of a high-sounding scientific word generally produces upon\nunscientific readers. A favourite expression of his, when speaking of\nsome psychological phenomenon, is that science knows all about it,\nand he calls it megalomania, graphomania, echolalia, or some such\nname. With people who have only a superficial knowledge of science,\nand who stand in awe of its achievements, such nouns stand for a\nspecial definite thing, thoroughly investigated and explained. They\ndo not know that these scientific names have been invented, not in\norder to designate something real and palpable, but simply for the\npurpose of bringing order into an arbitrary classification, invented\nso that the exchange of ideas may be facilitated on the subject thus\ntreated. Such scientific terms might even be classed among mystical\nsymbols, in so far as they often stand for something of which hardly\nanything is known, but at the same time serve the same useful end\nas algebraical figures. Psychologists are prone to speak of a man\u2019s\nconsciousness, though scarcely two scientific men would agree as to\nwhat it is. But this does not prevent them from dividing consciousness\nup into divisions and sub-divisions, all with their special names, in\norder to be able to express their ideas in words. The unscientific\nreader should bear in mind that consciousness has never been under\nthe microscope, or in the crucible, and that the classification of\nthe scientists has no counterpart in consciousness itself, and that\nthis remains the impalpable and indivisible _Ego_, with its infinite\nnumber of attributes inseparably commingled. All the different states,\nconditions, faculties, perfections, and defects of the _Ego_ are\nof course known only by the results they produce in the physical\nworld, and it is by these results that they have been classified.\nIt is evident that such methods of classification should leave an\nimmense margin for those who wish, or feel impelled by their own\nidiosyncrasies, to misuse scientific terms designating psychological\nphenomena.\n\nNordau indulges in this misuse of scientific terms to the fullest\nextent, in a way not to be easily discovered by the non-scientific\nreader. The word \u201ceroticism\u201d used by him so frequently, with all the\npomposity of a scientific term, is coined from the word \u201cerotic,\u201d a\nliterary term which again is derived, as we all know, from Eros, the\nGreek god of love. It is an adjective which means pertaining to or\nexpressive of love-passion. Such an adjective necessarily finds an\nenormously wide application, considering that love in one sense is the\nleading principle in organic creation, and, in a more psychological\nsense, the motive power in the human drama. We may say that we\nourselves, the outcome of love, regulate our whole life, and sometimes\nbase our hopes of a future state on love. Consequently there is hardly\nanything in our lives that is not covered by the adjective \u201cerotic.\u201d\n\nThe alienists having adopted the word \u201ceroticism\u201d in order to designate\na state of mind which certain actions reveal to them, and which state\nof mind, when its existence is corroborated by other facts, may be\nconsidered as a disease, it is evident that, while they may apply the\nword \u201ceroticism\u201d to almost anything in the organic world and in human\nsociety, it is better for their purpose to apply it only to a certain\nform of a diseased mind. While a strictly logical and careful alienist\nmight deem it irrational and confusing to use the term \u201ceroticism,\u201d or\neven the adjective \u201cerotic,\u201d outside a clearly defined case of mental\ndisease, it cannot be considered absolutely wrong to apply such terms\nwhenever the love-passion is in question, even a love-passion of a most\nlegitimate kind.\n\nWe shall now show how Nordau manages to slip over the border\nwithin which scientific terms should be used, and applies them\nindiscriminately to everything; and how he, in this manner, tries to\nestablish that Wagner suffers from erotic madness, because he looks\nupon love as one of the chief motors in the human drama and the tree of\nknowledge for good or evil.\n\nNordau, in a flippant criticism, which he endeavours to render funny,\nof the behaviour of Wagner\u2019s characters on the stage, forgets his\nself-criticism to such an extent as to liken them to mad tom-cats\u2014a\nsimile which probably no sane man would accept as true. Having once\nconceived the idea of mad tom-cats, it at once becomes an obsession\nin his mind, and suggests presentations of real cases of erotic fury.\nHe consequently, according to his habit, takes for granted that the\nactors on the stage must necessarily represent the exact state of mind\nof the author, and cries out that this state of the author\u2019s mind\n(which he has persuaded himself is that of a mad tom-cat) is well known\nto science, and is called sadism. Then, with a regret at having to\ntouch upon subjects in order to make his readers understand Wagner\u2019s\nreal mental condition, he gives a disgusting example of a maniac whose\nerotic madness has brought him below the level of the brute.\n\nThis is a fair sample of Nordau\u2019s logic. For the sake of clearness,\nwe recapitulate the logical _tour de force_ he has been compelled\nto exercise in order to arrive at such an absurdity: Wagner, like\nall poets and dramatists before him, creates a love scene. Love is\nan erotic emotion. Eroticism is a disease of the mind. Tom-cats are\nerotically influenced. The characters on the stage remind Nordau of\ntom-cats. The obsession of a \u201ctom-cat in convulsions over a root of\nvalerian\u201d suggests a raving madman. Consequently Wagner is mad.\n\nSuch is the use a scientist is tempted to make of his science when he\nthrows self-criticism overboard.\n\nWhen Nordau says of Wagner that he has been all his life an erotic, he\nis fair enough to add in parentheses, \u201cin a psychiatric sense.\u201d But\nthis is not enough. The word \u201cpsychiatric\u201d is a strictly scientific\nword, not to be found in any ordinary English dictionary; and the\nordinary reader might easily conclude that, instead of removing\nWagner\u2019s eroticism into the deep recesses of his soul, it might have\nbeen used by the author, as so many scientific words have been used, in\norder to aggravate his charge.\n\nIn order to justify his opinion with regard to Wagner\u2019s erotic madness,\nhe says: \u201cThe most ordinary incitements, even those farthest removed\nfrom the province of sexual instincts, never fail to awaken in his\nconsciousness voluptuous images of an erotic character.\u201d Why \u201csexual\ninstincts\u201d? Why not love-instincts, an expression which had so much\nbetter fitted in with the scenes Wagner represents? But, as it suits\nNordau\u2019s purpose to keep his reader\u2019s mind upon love in its lowest,\nmost animal form, we shall let it pass. We must however express our\nastonishment at the example he gives in order to show how incitements,\n\u201cfar removed from the province of sexual instincts,\u201d caused Wagner\u2019s\nmind to revert to voluptuous images. The \u201cfarthest removed incitements\u201d\nwhich Nordau quotes is the description by Wagner of a ballet\u2014a _pas de\ntrois_\u2014evidently intended to represent the blending of the beautiful\nwith love, to give Wagner\u2019s own words, \u201clove and life, the joy and\nwooing of art.\u201d What on earth, then, would more arouse such eroticism\nthat might be found in a man than a ballet representing love and\nlife? And this especially when we consider the modern freedom with\nregard to the costume of ballet girls. In order to show what Nordau\nconsiders to be the outcome of erotic madness in Wagner\u2019s choregraphic\nrepresentation of love, life, and art, we give _in extenso_ the passage\nfrom _Art-Work of the Future_, to which he refers:\n\n\u201cIn the contemplation of this ravishing dance of the most genuine\nand noblest muses of the artistic man, we now see the three arm in\narm lovingly entwined up to their necks, then this, then that one,\ndetaching herself from the entwinement, as if to display to the others\nher beautiful form in complete separation, touching the hands of the\nothers only with the extreme tips of her fingers; now the one, entwined\nby a backward glance at the twin forms of her closely entwined sisters,\nbending towards them; then two, carried away by the allurements of the\none, greeting her in homage; finally all, in close embrace, breast to\nbreast, limb to limb, in an ardent kiss of love, coalescing in one\nblissfully living shape. This is the love and life, the joy and wooing\nof art,\u201d etc.\n\nWhen Nordau wishes to traduce the love scenes in Wagner\u2019s operas into\narguments of the musician\u2019s erotic madness, he forgets many things. He\nforgets what he himself has given as a test of a sound mind, namely,\nthe ability to look after one\u2019s own business. Even if Wagner had\nproduced scenes on his stage of an utterly corrupt character in order\nto gain money and popularity, he having succeeded completely in such\nobjects could not possibly be called mad by a critic who has made\nmaterial success in life a test for sound-mindedness, and who declares\nthe belief in personal responsibility reaching beyond the grave to\nbe a sign of madness. But he also forgets, what is more important,\nthat there is no line of demarcation drawn to indicate how far the\nrepresentation of human passions may be carried on the stage.\n\nEven Nordau does not seem to have discovered an authority on this\nsubject. He himself will not serve as an authority, because he has\nshown himself too apt to fall into the error of newspaper critics,\nthat of judging a work or a piece, not according to its merits, but\naccording to the author who has produced it. He would praise in Goethe\nwhat he would condemn in Wagner. If we were to indiscriminately ask\npeople how far we may go in representing human passion on the stage,\nwe should get a mass of replies all differing according to the bias of\nthe respondents. The Ultramontane abb\u00e9, the zealous Methodist, would\ndiffer enormously from the Bohemian artist; the prudish old maid would\ndiffer from the poet. Nay, even two artists, both painters of the nude,\nor two ballet girls appearing in the same costume, might hold almost\nopposite opinions on this subject. How then shall we judge? By leaving\nout of court all the extremists\u2014those who object to theatres, ballets,\nand nature in art\u2014as well as those who would clamour for indecent\nand obscene representations, we might considerably narrow the ground\nfor inquiry, and elicit certain rules likely to meet the suffrage of\nthe majority within these limits. It might be argued that emotions,\nplaying by far the most important _r\u00f4le_ in the human drama, and lying\nas they do at the root of all our actions, educational agencies,\nand amusements, ought to be appealed to by the arts. Also that art,\nin affording us opportunities of giving expression to our emotions,\nelevates and ennobles our lives: consequently, that the passive,\nobjective contemplation of human emotions which the stage affords us\nhelps us to study our own emotions and to bring them into harmony with\nour noblest aspirations, our future happiness, our judgment, and our\nwill. In order to accomplish their mission, such representations should\nbe as true to life as possible, whether they be beautiful or not. On\nthis plea, it would be legitimate to represent on the stage erotic\nemotions in the full strength in which we meet with them in reality\namong sound-minded people. A good deal of exaggeration may be permitted\nto the actor as he is under the difficulty of having to convey by\nactions, gestures, or facial expression a distinct representation of\nemotions which may rage in the consciousness of a human being without\nbetraying themselves in physical signs.\n\nFrom this it must be concluded that the purity of the stage depends\nmore on what is acted than how it is acted. The author who does not\nwish to desecrate the drama is therefore bound to represent emotions\nwhich are the outcome of natural life, and acted upon by incidents such\nas we see around us and to avoid the representation of, even if he\ncannot avoid the reference to, emotions which spring from a diseased\nmind or a morbid moral state.\n\nLove, being an emotion to which every sound-minded being may be\nsubject, there would be no objection to represent it in the most\nintense manner on the stage so long as we understand under the name\nof love that strong degree of affection which sometimes people of the\nopposite sex may conceive for each other apart from sexual emotions.\nWhat makes Nordau\u2019s reasoning plausible is that he does not admit that\nthis kind of love exists. He distinguishes only two degrees, or two\ncategories, of love, comradeship or friendship on the one hand, and\nthe animal instinct on the other. But no one who has gone through life\nwith open eyes can possibly deny the reality of what we here, for want\nof a better expression, would call pure love. Everywhere we meet with\nmanifestations of it. Even young children, who might have no idea of\nsexual emotion, often love each other with a genuine passion which\nsometimes lasts through life. Adults may be so absorbed in love for\neach other as to prefer death to separation, and yet never experience\nany sexual emotion in each other\u2019s company. Men and women lovers who\nhave been separated have wasted away from sheer love of each other,\nand yet been remarkably chaste in character. In the English-speaking\ncountries, where the relations between the sexes are free and natural,\nwe find any number of proofs of the reality of pure love. Those cases\nalone which have ended tragically, and therefore come before the\npublic, more than suffice to prove it. Even in countries like France,\nfor example, where the sexual instincts are apt to become morbid from\nthe one-sided education of the young, it is not difficult to find\nexamples of pure love. It is even to be found where least expected, as,\nfor instance, between a licentious man and a fallen woman. It is true\nthat when pure love runs its usual course it gets, so to say, inflamed\nby animal passion, but this is generally the case only as a result of\nthe demonstrations by which pure love tries to manifest itself. It may\nalso be true that there exists a mysterious, that is to say a so far\nunexplained, connection between the purest love and sexual instinct\neven in loving couples to whom sexuality may be an abomination. But\nall this does not disprove that, speaking from a practical and ethical\npoint of view, there is such an emotion as pure love, and that this\nemotion is a powerful motor in the human drama.\n\nIf it then be a fact that this yearning to love and to be loved with\na pure love exists, and ought to exist, in rational human beings,\nand that in running its natural course it will manifest itself\nin demonstrations extremely likely to rouse animal passions, the\nquestion arises how far a love scene on the stage may display those\ndemonstrations which, while they are the only possible means of\nexpressing pure love, at the same time suggest sexual emotions.\n\nHere then is the point where the difference will arise, and where we\nmay well be careful whose decision we accept. Can we do better than\nWagner did\u2014leave the audience to decide?\n\nWagner\u2019s German audiences, described by Nordau as including wives and\ndaughters, have, to his great bewilderment, given the verdict in favour\nof Wagner\u2019s most passionate scenes. \u201cHow unperverted,\u201d Nordau cries\nout, \u201cmust wives and maidens be, when they are in a state of mind to\nwitness these pieces without blushing crimson, and sinking to the earth\nfor shame!\u201d No. They have not blushed in following calmly and serenely\nthe objective representations of passions which by nature have been\nimplanted in every breast. The very vehemence, the very naturalness of\nthe scenes inspire that awe and reverence which great natural forces\nalways do, and the young girl in the audience does not for a moment\nrevert to any impure representations or animal promptings which might\nhave come within her experience, because she is \u00e6sthetically and not\nsexually excited. But if Nordau could watch her when she reads the\nabove quoted passage in his book, he would see her blush deeply, not at\nthe memory of Wagner\u2019s scenes, but at the feeling of having the first\nseed of degeneration sown in her heart.\n\nAmong the phrases used by Nordau in order to inculcate his readers with\nthe idea that Wagner, instead of being the very essence of an artist,\none of the greatest practically creative geniuses of the world, is a\nmere erotic maniac, is this one\u2014\u201call his ideas revolve about woman.\u201d\nWhile this phrase may lead the unwary reader astray, it throws a vivid\nlight on the extent to which Nordau\u2019s opinion with regard to the\nrelation of the sexes has been influenced by his continental bias. This\nought to be made clear to his readers. Such expressions, if of any use\nat all in Nordau\u2019s reasoning, pre-suppose that it is quite an unusual\nthing for the ideas of poets, dramatists, and writers of fiction to\nrevolve about woman. For our alienist does not refer to Wagner\u2019s\nprivate life. He is speaking only of Wagner the author. The actual\nfact, of course, is that love and women have from times immemorial been\nthe subject of legends, fairy tales, troubadour songs, poems, romances,\nnovels, and dramas. Thus, according to the gospel of our alienist, all\nthe past and present poetical authors of the world must have been, and\nare, \u201csubject to erotic madness,\u201d like Wagner.\n\nThere are, of course, men who, like Faust, devote their lives to\nintellectual pursuits and expend all their energy in forcing nature to\nyield up her secrets. But such men are not only exceptions\u2014they may be\nlooked upon as degenerates. This is what Faust at last discovered. He\nrecognised that life was essentially emotional, and that by having\ncrushed out his emotional nature he had failed to live his life.\nWhether Goethe intended to impart the lesson his _Faust_ teaches us may\nbe doubtful, but we can thus read it: we may suppress our emotional\nnature for a long time, but it will one day claim its rights, and,\nin its explosive escape from unnatural bondage, avenge itself on the\nsuppressor, and hurl him to perdition. The emotions, Faust regrets, are\nall those inspired by women.\n\nBut the great majority of men do not suppress the emotions inspired by\nwomen, but, on the contrary, allow their whole lives to be influenced\nby them. To find confirmation of this fact in countries like France\nand Germany might not be so easy as in the English-speaking countries.\nWherever the sexes are separated in youth, and where conventional\nmarriages are the rule, the erotic impulses become over-stimulated and\nlead to the excitement of animal passion. The love of the beautiful,\nall the \u00e6sthetic aspirations, the yearning for the society of women,\nthe love of excitement, the chivalrous leanings, and the craving for\npure love\u2014all these are thrown as so much fuel into the furnace of\nsexual love. It is then that the struggle arises between the terrible\ndemoniac love and pure love\u2014a struggle so frequently depicted in\nWagner\u2019s operas and which determines the lives of so many men on the\ncontinent.\n\nPart of the struggle of the continental man is to avoid the influence\nof women altogether, or else to look upon them after the manner of the\nMahommedans. In countries therefore where pure love is left but little\nor no scope, the influence of women is not very marked, and certainly\nnot acknowledged, because for a man to acknowledge it would be to avow\nhimself an \u201cerotic madman.\u201d\n\nTo understand the immense influence which a woman exercises over man\u2019s\ndestiny and how closely men\u2019s minds \u201crevolve about women,\u201d we must\nstudy the English-speaking countries where pure love has, if not free\nscope, freer scope than anywhere else, and where few healthy-minded men\nare ashamed to avow the value they place upon woman, her love, and her\ninfluence.\n\nDespite the fact that Englishmen do not display towards women of\nall classes that engaging politeness which favourably distinguishes\nFrenchmen, a stranger who visits England cannot fail soon to perceive\nin what high estimation woman is held. Her name is seldom taken in\nvain. There is no trace of that gross satire upon women which so\noften disfigures continental prints; she may be represented as sharp,\nworldly, extravagant, but rarely as immoral, unfaithful, or ugly. Some\nof the lower-class papers are strongly influenced by French views, but\nthey never indulge in adaptations without some modification, and such\npapers as have been started in order to emulate the fast journals of\nParis have always been extremely short-lived.\n\nThe same respect for women is manifest in fiction as well as on the\nstage. Here again in consequence of French influence we meet with\nwomen who have sinned, and women with a past, but they never play such\ndegraded parts as they often do in French novels and plays. Ladies\nare allowed an extensive liberty, and they are rarely insulted; and\nobtain, even under trying circumstances, a respectful treatment at the\nhands of the lowest class of labourers. We have unfortunately amongst\nus ruffians who beat their wives, but in ninety-nine cases out of a\nhundred these are drunken and debauched human failures. The average\nworking man treats his wife and his daughter with as much consideration\nas a nobleman could his, and their home is kept morally pure and as\ncomfortable for the women as his resources allow. He is not ashamed to\ncarry parcels, burdens, the children, or to perambulate the baby in\npublic places in order to spare his wife the trouble.\n\nThe men most reluctantly suspect a woman of immorality, and generally\nnot until there seems a strong case against her. Indecent words and\nallusions are entirely excluded in the presence of ladies, and if a\nwoman in her innocence inadvertently makes a risky remark, it passes\nunheeded and without producing a smile.\n\nThe average Englishman\u2019s life brings him into constant contact with\nwomen, and he is perfectly aware that he owes to them much that is\nbright and happy in his existence. Already as a child he is the trusted\nprotector of his sisters, and often the cavalier of their friends.\nEarly in life he loves some young woman, and his long courtship is to\nhim a happy time. When he works hard, when he risks his life on the sea\nor in dangerous climes, it is generally with a view to marrying the\ngirl he loves. When he is married, he wishes to succeed that he may\ngain his wife\u2019s approval, beautify her home, and make her life happy;\nwhile at the same time he never remains insensible to the admiration\nof other women. While his wife is yet young, his daughters grow up and\nbecome important features in his life and his happiness.\n\nIt may therefore be said of the men of the English-speaking countries\nthat their \u201cideas revolve about women,\u201d and it will be difficult to\npersuade us Englishmen that respect, admiration, and love for women\nare the signs of a degenerate mind. Coleridge well expresses the\nEnglish feeling\u2014a feeling which, under circumstances similar to those\nprevailing in England, would be universal:\n\n    \u201cAll thoughts, all passions, all delights,\n      Whatever stirs this mortal frame,\n    All are but ministers of Love,\n      And feed his sacred flame.\u201d\n\nWagner\u2019s music, which may be said to have been the delight of millions\nof people, is not approved of by Nordau. He condemns it on the usual\nground that it is novel, and that it differs from the standards\naccepted before Wagner. According to him, it is the music of an unsound\nmind, because it contains no distinct ideas in the shape of melodies.\nHe objects to the _Leit-motiv_ and to the unending melody, but it is\ndifficult to harmonize what he says against the one with what he says\nagainst the other. Speaking of the _Leit-motiv_, he says: \u201cTo express\nideas is not the function of music. Language provides for that as\ncompletely as could be desired. When the word is accompanied by song\nor orchestra, it is not to make it more definite, but to reinforce it\nby the intervention of emotion. Music is a kind of sounding-board in\nwhich the word has to awake something like an echo from the infinite.\u201d\nLater on he says about melody: \u201cIt is a regular grouping of notes in a\nhighly expressive series of tones. Melody in music corresponds to what\nin language is a logically constructed sentence distinctly presenting\nan idea, and having a clearly marked beginning and ending.\u201d\n\nMusic being an art which exclusively appeals to emotion, it is not\nsurprising that any attempt to measure its value by a reasoning process\nshould result in utter failure. But this is no excuse for an author to\ncontradict himself so flatly as Nordau does in the above passages. To\nsay on one page that \u201c_to express ideas is not the function of music_,\u201d\nand on another page to say that melody is indispensable to music,\nbecause it \u201ccorresponds to a logically constructed sentence _distinctly\npresenting an idea_.\u201d Again he says: \u201cMelody may be said to be an\neffort to say something definite,\u201d and how can this harmonize with\nthe other mission of music: \u201cto awake something like an echo from the\ninfinite.\u201d The latter expression is not only a true definition of the\nmission of music, but also an exact description of the aim of Wagner\u2019s\nmusic.\n\nNordau feels that his scientific reasoning about music will affect no\none who has heard the music of Wagner, and that those who admire it\nwill be slow to believe that an unsound mind could have accomplished\nsuch complicated, intricate, and complete work. To prepare his reader\u2019s\nmind for his rash conclusion, he once more goes to the lunatic asylum\nfor his arguments, in order to show that a man may be a lunatic and yet\nbe a good musician. But here again he is strangely blind to the fact\nthat such arguments tell directly against his theory. He cites cases of\nlunatics who \u201cimprovised on the piano,\u201d who \u201csang very beautiful airs\nand at the same time improvised two different themes on the piano...\nwho composed very beautiful, new, and melodious tunes.\u201d\n\nThe remarkable thing about the music of his maniacs is that it is tuny\nand melodious, and consequently the only rational music, according to\nNordau, while Wagner\u2019s music is condemned by him, and Wagner himself is\nheld up as a lunatic because his music is not like that of acknowledged\nlunatics! It stands to reason that a weak mind could follow and repeat\na style of music which it has heard for years, but that it requires a\nstrong and sound mind to break a new road in the domain of music with\nthe full approval of millions of musical people.\n\nNordau also feels the necessity of backing up his opinion by\nauthorities. He sees a conclusive proof of Wagner\u2019s inferiority in\nthe criticism of professional musicians and composers. He might as\nwell form his opinion of an actress on the criticism of her by her\nmost dangerous rival. It seems that Hiller and Schumann would not\nacknowledge Wagner\u2019s musical endowment, but attributed his success to\nthe _libretti_ written by himself. Regarding this Nordau exclaims:\n\u201cThe same old story: musicians regard him as a poet, and poets as a\nmusician.\u201d This means that our alienist is, or pretends to be, so\nutterly innocent of humour and satire as to accept this very common way\nof minimizing the talent of a rival as a trustworthy judgment. It is\nthe commonest thing in the world for a man to deny his rival\u2019s talent\nin his own specialty, and then, in order to strengthen the effect of\nhis opinion and to give it the colour of impartiality, to acknowledge\nin him talents outside that specialty. Practical men, when they hear\none musician run down another musician, generally conclude that the\nlatter has a dangerous talent. Voltaire, in speaking of a writer none\nof whose works were in existence, said that he must have been a man of\ngenius judging from the savage attacks made upon him by another writer.\n\nHiller and Schumann are the only authorities whom Nordau can point to\nin support of his views, and he himself raises some doubts whether\ntheir dislike of Wagner\u2019s music was not due to the difficulty of\nimmediately appreciating a tendency so novel as Wagner\u2019s. Our alienist\nis only able to add that Rubinstein can only make some important\nreservations, and that it was some time before Hanslick struck his\ncolours. In view, then, of the enormous literature that has grown\nup around Wagner and Wagnerism, Nordau\u2019s habit of referring to\nauthorities in this instance simply has the effect of showing that he\nstands unsupported in his opinion by all musical authorities. It is\nirresistibly comic to notice how Nordau regrets that the brochure\u2014_Der\nFall Wagner_\u2014in which Nietzsche attacks Wagner, is quite as \u201cinsanely\ndelirious\u201d as another brochure written by the same writer twelve years\nbefore in deification of Wagner. Had it not been for this awkward\ncircumstance, Nordau, it seems, would have been only too glad to exalt\nNietzsche\u2014the man whom in another part of his work he strenuously\nendeavours to prove an imbecile\u2014to the rank of an authority. His\namazing lack of logic prevents him from seeing that a certificate of\nlunacy issued by a lunatic is really a certificate of sanity, in virtue\nof the logical axiom that two negatives are equal to one affirmative.\n\nSuch faults and defects as may be found in Wagner\u2019s prose writings have\nlittle importance in relation\u2014and are almost irrelevant\u2014to the question\nof his supposed degeneracy. He had to deal with subjects which,\nthough intensely real to our emotional nature, can only be treated\ninadequately in words. Whatever we may think of Wagner\u2019s style, there\ncan be little doubt that he has succeeded in making himself understood\nby a great number of people whose emotional nature sympathizes with\nthat of Wagner, and whom even Nordau would not undertake to prove to\nbe mentally deranged or morally degenerate. Wagner\u2019s writings have the\ndefect, very general among German writers, and conspicuous in Nordau,\nof being verbose. They all make us crave for \u201cDer langen Rede, kurzen\nSinn.\u201d\n\nThe fundamental idea in Wagner\u2019s great work\u2014_The Art-Work of the\nFuture_\u2014is that the arts should co-operate, and that each individual\nart should attain to its perfection in conjunction with other arts.\nNordau in no way disproves the soundness of this view by saying that\n\u201cGoethe\u2019s lyric poetry and the _Divina Commedia_\u201d need no landscape\npainting, that \u201cMichael Angelo\u2019s \u2018Moses\u2019 would hardly produce a deeper\nimpression surrounded by dancers and singers,\u201d and that \u201cthe \u2018Pastoral\nSymphony\u2019 does not require a complement of words in order to exercise\nits full charm.\u201d\n\nWith that logic peculiar to Nordau, he quotes a passage from\nSchopenhauer in which this thinker mildly deprecates such co-ordination\nof the arts as was to be found in the operas of his time, and our\nalienist wishes us to accept this as a proof of insanity in Wagner\u2019s\nadmiration for the opera. He forgets the important fact that\nWagner\u2019s greatness is proved by the way in which he has succeeded in\nobliterating at least the worst defects of the opera as it existed\nbefore him, and that he has rendered it a complete and harmonious\nexpression of combined and elevated arts. The quoted passage from\nSchopenhauer could be no condemnation of Wagner\u2019s operas as it was\nwritten before they saw the light. In the operas, as they used to be,\nthere was much that tended to disturb the imagination and even to\narouse laughter. The most exasperating incongruities were indulged\nin. An exciting hunting chorus would be played and sung while two\nrows of lady supers would walk in from each side of the wings in\nIndian file, each bearing as a hunting implement a yard-long piece\nof wood surmounted by a piece of tin. The impossible dresses, the\ndemure demeanour, the solemn faces, the absurd lances\u2014carried like\ncandles in a nuns\u2019 procession\u2014all this clashed so terribly with the\nmusic and the theme as to suggest a burlesque. A band of conspirators\nafraid of being detected, yet shouting at the top of their voices some\ncompromising chorus; a man with a deadly wound rising to his feet and\nsinging a lively and complicated aria; a messenger in the hottest haste\ndelivering a message in a slow and long-drawn recitative; an intensely\nmodern consumptive lady dying amid ancient surroundings, trilling in\nher last gasps musical complexities, during a quarter of an hour,\nwith a marvellously strong and healthy voice\u2014such, and many other\nabsurdities, disfigured the opera before Wagner and Gounod, and well\ndeserved the condemnation of Schopenhauer.\n\nWagner\u2019s assertion that the natural evolution of each art leads to\nthe surrender of its independence and to its fusion with other arts\nis looked upon by Nordau as delirious. To prove this he falls back on\nbiology, and points out that nature develops from the simple to the\ncomplex, that originally similar parts develop into separate organs\nof different structure and independent functions. Why on earth should\nthere necessarily be an analogy between the growth of plants and\nanimals, and between the development of the arts? Any other writer who\nhad been unfortunate enough to indulge in such profound mysticism would\ncertainly have been condemned by Nordau to the lunatic asylum. Even\nif we admit the analogy as permissible, he gains very little by it:\nfor when he speaks of nature as always proceeding from the simple to\nthe complex he describes exactly the development of the arts into the\nopera\u2014music, poetry, and dancing representing each the simple, and the\nopera representing the complex. What would Nordau think of a mad doctor\nwho based his verdict of insanity on such reasoning?\n\nThe attentive student of Nordau\u2019s impeachment of Wagner cannot fail\nto see that, despite all his efforts to brand him as a degenerate, he\nhas only succeeded in throwing the grand power of that genius into\nbolder relief. Instead of inducing us to look upon Wagner as a sign\nof degeneration, he has impressed us with the fact that Wagner\u2019s work\nconstitutes an awakening from the slumber in which Philistinism and\nconventionalism have so long enwrapped humanity, and opened a new vista\nfor the ennobling mission of the arts.\n\nWhile we must reject Nordau\u2019s clinging to that pedantry and\nconventionalism which limit the mission of the arts to the production\nof isolated pictures for public galleries and the salons of\nmodern M\u00e6cenases, statues for public places, and compositions of\n_Kammer-musik_ for drawing-rooms, we at the same time do not believe\nthat the opera, even as regenerated by the genius of a Wagner, is\nthe highest expression of the arts. There will come a day when the\nillusions of the stage will be realities, when we shall dispense with\nthe dusty sceneries, the garish footlights, the painted faces, the\nprudish trappings, which go to make up the mirage which heralds an\nideal future. The arts, instead of being relegated to the nursery in\norder to make room for science, as Nordau prophesies, will become\nits aim. When science has given us health, strength, and beauty, an\nextended power over nature\u2019s forces, when it has solved the terrible\nsocial problem on the basis of liberty and progress, then will science\nbe the handmaiden of the arts. Then will the answer be granted to the\npoet\u2019s prayer:\n\n    \u201cOh! for a muse of fire that shall ascend\n    The highest heaven of invention;\n    A kingdom for a stage; princes to act;\n    And monarchs to behold the swelling scene!\u201d\n\nThe arts, after having demonstrated in the opera their solidarity and\ntheir independence, will leave that artificial shelter and take up\ntheir abode in our homes and in our civic buildings, in our streets,\nand in our public places, in our arenas and in our temples.\n\nA new renaissance lies ahead of us, and we are all struggling to reach\nit. The man who thinks and writes, the artist who paints or composes,\nthe peasant at the plough, the miner in the bowels of the earth, all\nare contributing to further the advent of a new era when the life,\nthe work, the pleasure, and the worship of a regenerate race shall be\nexalted by the arts, and present a realization of what Wagner dreamed\nwhile he created.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\n_THE RELIGION OF SELF_\n\n\nThe term egomania is a welcome present from the scientists, which\nenriches our language with a verbal representation of a psychological\ncondition which is certainly characteristic of our time. We trust that\nNordau\u2019s diagnosis of the disease will be carefully studied by its\nvictims, especially by those who are in the stage where it appears as\negoism, self-sufficiency, indifference to others, to society, to the\nState, and as that fashionable and superior pessimism which despairs\nof self as an excuse for despairing of others. For, though Nordau\ngoes very minutely into the psychological aspect of egomania without\nindicating its origin or the remedies against it, he evidently does\nnot reject the theory, which seems constantly to be confirmed by\nactualities, that mental diseases may be fostered and aggravated both\nby those who suffer from them, as well as by surrounding circumstances.\n\nPutting his opinion as a psychologist together with that of others,\nwe seem authorized to hope that when our egotistical pessimists have\nlearned that the aristocratic characteristic on which they pride\nthemselves is the beginning of a mental disease, they will fly to such\nremedies as may be found in the study of useful science and healthy\nwork.\n\nSuch authors as Th\u00e9ophile Gautier, Baudelaire, Rollinat, and others\nattract especially Nordau\u2019s attention; but he deals with them in order\nto show that they individually had degenerated into egomaniacs, and\nhe does not once try to realize the relation between their so-called\ndegeneracy and the general tendencies of our time. Had he done so, he\nmight have felt inclined to be less hard on these exponents of _fin de\nsi\u00e8cle_ corruption. Speaking of the hints which this school of poets\nand writers sometimes throws out that they are not quite serious,\nNordau comes very near to discovering their significance when he says\nabout Baudelaire that perhaps \u201che sought to make himself believe that,\nwith his Satanism, he was laughing at the Philistines.\u201d But Nordau does\nnot follow up the cue he has thus accidentally dropped upon, but adds a\nsentence revealing the one-sidedness of his inquiry, when he says: \u201cbut\nsuch a tardy palliation does not deceive the psychologist, and it is of\nno importance for his judgment.\u201d\n\nThat may be so. But it is of the utmost importance to humanity. That\nthe yielding to the promptings of \u201cunconsciousness,\u201d to the dictates of\ninstincts bad or good, was on the part of the so-called Parnassians\nan experimental plunge in the dark\u2014a challenge to those who pretended\nto know better to show them that they were wrong\u2014cannot be denied by\nany one who has read their writings with some knowledge of the French\ncharacter.\n\nThese men took up literature at a time when the world began to perceive\nthat science could not satisfy its emotional aspirations, that it could\nnot explain the mysteries of the Universe, or bring about that balance\nbetween our emotional and intellectual natures on which a healthy\nlife depends. But this was not the only disillusion which humanity\nexperienced at that time. All the hopes which the altruistic feeling\nhad prompted us to base on democratic governments and scientific\npolitical economy had vanished. When the Utopias of the economists\nturned out to be a _fata morgana_, instead of the solid ladder leading\nup to the material heaven promised by the religion of humanity of the\nscientists, a Babylonian confusion arose among the people who had first\nbeen told to worship at the shrine of religion, then at the shrine\nof science, and now stood without any shrine whatsoever. In France,\nmore than in any other country, we meet with people whose minds are\ntoo subtle and whose emotions are too genuine to permit them to dwell\ncontented in that Philistinism which leans on the one side towards\nthe scientific creed or absence of creed, in order to appear modern,\nand, on the other side, on religion, in order to be safe, but whose\nreal shrine is the money-safe. These French people, mostly authors and\nartists, had studied both the religious and the scientific theories,\nand had found the causes of their miscarriage.\n\nThe Church had said: \u201cNature is vile, man is naturally bad, instincts\nare prompted by the devil, and knowledge is one of the snares of hell.\u201d\nBut the Roman Church had not only failed in its mission to keep up the\nfaith and render humanity virtuous and happy, but was responsible for\ngreat social troubles, superstitions, and obstacles to progress. It\nhad good intentions, but the way in which it tried to carry them out\nrendered them valueless. It required power first, much power, complete\npower over everything, and the acquisition of power did more harm than\nthe Church could do good when ever so powerful. The Protestant Churches\nin France were gloomy, prudish, anti-artistic, and appealed with\ndifficulty to any French character. Their dogmas seemed incompatible\nwith scientific truth, and their mission appeared to be rather to\npersuade their members that they were perfect than to render them\nperfect. Besides, a great many minds throughout the world, accredited\nwith scientific accomplishments, had mercilessly opposed dogmatic\nreligion.\n\nScience, in its turn, when asked, Where is truth? Where is the ideal?\ncould only point to a pile of facts laboriously built up like a brick\nwall, and had to confess that what it wished to give instead of\nreligion was mere speculations. The ultimate conclusion it pointed\nto was selfishness, personal irresponsibility, and a mere animal\nexistence. It failed entirely to satisfy the great moving power in\nthe scheme of humanity\u2014emotions\u2014and could not therefore satisfy human\nyearnings and aspirations.\n\nThe postulates of religion\u2014the wickedness of nature and of man\u2014were\nrejected as groundless, and the guidance of intellect and science was\nspurned because they were powerless to influence the emotions.\n\nFinding themselves in the plight of a ship driving about in the ocean\nwithout compass or rudder, the Parnassians, the Decadents, and many\nothers thought it was time to try a desperate course. Perhaps, after\nall, they thought, nature is good, perhaps human instincts may be\ntrusted; let us be natural and follow our instincts. There was much to\nencourage the new departure. It had often been found that the purest\njoys were the most lasting, that the good was the most beautiful, that\nlives and actions prompted by the altruistic feelings best satisfied\nselfish yearnings, that vice was disappointing, unhealthy, degrading,\nand joy-killing; that virtue improved life, increased the capacity for\nenjoyment, and beautified mind and body. These observations encouraged\nthe belief in the religion of self. The _Ego_ was not bad; but it\nrequired freedom to develop itself.\n\nLike all founders of systems and philosophies, the Parnassians and\nDecadents sought for confirmation of their theories in the possibility\nof a Utopia. In imagining a state of things under which the self should\nhave unlimited latitude for self-realization, where man could satisfy\nhis highest aspirations and enjoy the greatest possible happiness under\nthe guidance of his altruistic promptings, where his instincts should\nbe so sharpened and developed as to unfailingly select the greatest and\nthe most lasting, and therefore the noblest, pleasures\u2014in imagining\nsuch a state of things these experimentalists perceived that society,\nsuch as it was around them, offered thousands of obstacles to every\nattempt at practical realization of their theories. They thus came to\nlook upon themselves as at war with society, its old standards, its\nprejudices, its religions, and its morals.\n\nTheir writings were at once weapons, challenges, rallying-cries. They\nwere intended to deride, to shock, and to draw attention to the new\nphilosophy. The distinction between good and bad was obliterated. The\nartist and the poet should henceforth express their true feelings and\nnought else. Instinct should take the place of principles. The devil\nmight be worshipped as well as God. Art should have no other object\nthan art. Nature might be abhorred as well as loved. And so on.\n\nFrom this moral chaos the self was to rise in all its glory. For the\npresent it was distorted by surrounding circumstances. The ugliness and\nmorbidness of the subjects they wrote about and the distortion of their\nown feelings were the proofs of the decayed state upon which humanity\nhad entered. Characters such as Huysman\u2019s Duc des Esseintes were\nintended to illustrate what the present state of society was, and what\nits present tenets would lead to. He is intended to represent the final\nresult of our civilization, and to show that disgust of our race may be\nso great as to inspire a man with the belief that by fostering evil and\ncreating criminals he does a good action in so far as he accelerates\nthe destruction of society.\n\nThe Parnassians and the Decadents have no proclaimed creed or any\nprogramme, and their own opinion of their philosophy is of the haziest\nkind. We are therefore far from asserting that we have here interpreted\nthem as they would interpret themselves. Whatever may be said of their\nstyle and their writings, they have, at least, the merit of being\nfrank and unsophisticated, and we think it must be recognised that,\nwhether they know it or not, they hold themselves up as the \u201cfrightful\nexamples\u201d of the chaotic state into which creeds, principles, morals,\nare falling at the end of this century. To us the moral, both of their\nexistence and of their writing, is that the world, and especially\nFrance, stands in sore need of better churches, of a better system of\nphilosophy, and better principles of government. These authors have\nrendered a great service in tearing away the hypocritical mask which\nsociety is so anxious to maintain, and thus demonstrating the great\nneed of regenerating agencies.\n\nOf late, England has been considerably influenced by France, and the\n\u00e6sthetic revolt just referred to naturally affected the English, but\nmerely as a faint echo.\n\nWhen Nordau, who correctly points out the connection between the\nDecadents in France and the extreme \u00e6sthetes in England, insinuates\nthat the whole of English society is affected by it, he labours under a\nwrong impression. We have had here\u2014and we speak purposely in the past\ntense\u2014a knot of people who have believed, as Nordau states, that a work\nof art is its own aim, that it may be immoral. But, as he himself has\nstated, the \u00e6sthetic awakening in England has forced art almost in the\nopposite direction. We have had poets who have imitated Baudelaire and\nother writers of the same class, but these imitators have, by imitating\nmany others, displayed a weakness which debars them from any great\ninfluence. There was a time with us when a thoroughly immoral decadence\nhad a spell of influence and created a sickly literature. But the\ninfluence of this sham \u00e6stheticism is fast vanishing, since its essence\nhas been mercilessly exposed.\n\nWhile the influence of the Parnassians and Decadents in France was only\nsmall, in England the circumstances which produced them have been in\nexistence among us and have produced effects to some extent similar.\nThe struggle between science and religion, the distrust of both, the\nfailure of social panaceas, and the irresistible pushing of the working\nclass against old social barriers have produced in a great number of\neducated men a peculiar state of mind which we wish that Nordau had\nnoticed. Whether he would have placed those thus affected among his\ndegenerates as egomaniacs it is impossible for us to decide, but there\ncan be little doubt that egoism is the chief characteristic of a new\nreligion or a new mental disease, which has made large inroads among\neducated men. It becomes manifest in their pessimism and in their\nindifferentism. They believe that everything is bad, that the classes\nare bad, that the masses are bad, that the country is in a bad state,\nand that everything will finish badly. At the same time they do not\ncare. They will do nothing to avert the coming evils. They hope that\nnone will think them foolish enough to make themselves martyrs. They\nwish it to be clearly understood that they care only for themselves\nand that they take no heed of what happens to others. They loathe\nthe working class, and affect a desire to crush them out of existence\nat one blow. They belong to the few Englishmen who suspect women of\nvile things, except of course their mothers, sisters, _fianc\u00e9es_, and\nwives. They think life hardly worth living, and certainly not worth any\nspecial exertions, but their main preoccupation is the state of their\nhealth. They study nothing save their own inclinations and cravings\nand certain excrescences of the most modern literature. Their capacity\nfor hatred is stupendous in its scope but meek in its expression. They\nclaim to enjoy all the benefits of social life without considering\nthemselves obliged to perform any of its duties. They manage to be\nspendthrifts without being generous, and to be mean without being\neconomical.\n\nBut we are strongly averse to classing these social phenomena among\nthe hopeless egomaniacs. They exaggerate their egotism to such an\nextent as to suggest that they are rather following a foolish fashion\nthan undergoing moral decay, and that the existence of pinchbeck\npatriots, political charlatans, sham enthusiasts, and professional\nphilanthropists has frightened them from showing their best side and\nusing their best abilities, and causes them to flout their pessimism\nand selfishness in every one\u2019s face lest they should be taken for one\nof these.\n\nIn spite of their infatuated posing as degenerate egomaniacs, we\nbelieve that many of them may be counted upon as part of those\nelements from which the future regeneration may spring, when the cloud\nof scepticism has cleared away, and a goal worthy to strive for is\ndiscernible.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\n_AN ETHICAL INQUISITION_\n\n\nA very large part of the sum-total of the work accomplished by\nNordau in _Degeneration_ consists in describing scientifically the\npsychological phenomena which underlie the idiosyncrasies of certain\nauthors and artists: in giving scientific names to their weaknesses,\nand in setting forth the relations in which such weaknesses stand to\nmadness. These idiosyncrasies, these weaknesses, and their relations to\nmadness were well known to observant people long before Nordau\u2019s book\nwas written, and to these his work is simply the technical explanation\nof familiar phenomena. In another chapter we shall dwell at greater\nlength on the difference of views which Nordau tends to bring about.\nHere we wish to point out that, in spite of the mass of scientific\nphraseology employed by Nordau, and in spite of the difference of\nviews he endeavours to bring about, in what seems to be his main\nobject, he is entirely in accord with millions of sound-minded people\nin this country. We English deplore, as deeply as any one can, the\nexistence of artists and works of so-called art which appeal rather\nto the morbid than to the healthy mind; of poetry, novels, and dramas\ncalculated to flatter the corrupt, instead of stimulating in all a\ndesire for elevation. We especially deplore the diabolical work done by\npornographic artists and authors.\n\nOwing to this accord in aims with Nordau, his work has been read, and\nis being read, by thousands in this country, in the hope that his\nvaunted science and his strong mind would show us the right remedies.\nBut in this respect we have been sorely disappointed; for instead\nof meeting with that complete grasp of the subject to which English\nscientists have accustomed us, we meet in his proposal of remedies with\nthat dazed and superficial logic which throughout his work clashes so\nstrangely with his power of perceiving and of marshalling his facts.\n\nThe way he proposes to treat the \u201cmystics, but especially egomaniacs\nand filthy pseudo-realists,\u201d forcibly reminds us of the solemn\nresolution of the rats to bell the cat. He says:\n\n\u201cSociety must unconditionally defend itself against them. Whoever\nbelieves with me that society is the natural organic form of humanity,\nin which alone it can exist, prosper, and continue to develop itself\nto higher destinies; whoever looks upon civilization as a good, having\nvalue and deserving to be defended, must mercilessly crush under\nhis thumb the anti-social vermin. To him who, with Nietzsche, is\nenthusiastic over the \u2018freely-roving, lusting beast of prey,\u2019 we cry:\n\u2018Get you gone from civilization! Rove far from us! Be a lusting beast\nof prey in the desert! Satisfy yourself! Level your roads, build your\nhuts, clothe and feed yourself as you can! Our streets and our houses\nare not built for you; our looms have no stuffs for you; our fields are\nnot tilled for you. All our labour is performed by men who esteem each\nother, have consideration for each other, mutually aid each other, and\nwho have to curb their selfishness for the general good. There is no\nplace among us for the lusting beast of prey; and if you dare to return\nto us, we will pitilessly beat you to death with clubs.\u2019\u201d\n\nAll this sounds very well; but if Nordau believes that in this passage\nhe has given us the true method of how to defend society against its\nliterary and artistic enemies, he labours under a delusion with regard\nto his own achievements that savours somewhat of megalomania. His big\nwords, his righteous indignation, and his manifold signs of exclamation\nare not a magic wand, are not a Saint Patrick\u2019s mitre, with power to\nbanish toads and serpents from the country.\n\nWhen he says that society should be defended, we can understand him.\nBut when he says that society must defend itself, he drops into\nthe mist of commonplace and meaningless generalities. The word\n\u201csociety\u201d stands for one of those things which will serve very well\nas the object of an activity, but not as a subject because, while\nits smallest component part may be affected, action is only possible\nthrough an organized co-operation of all its parts. To a German who\nhas never witnessed the attempt of a free democratic community to\nlaunch out into collective activity, this difference in the active\nand passive positions of society may never have occurred. To him\nthe activity of society seems an easy matter, because in his mind\nsociety is represented by a concentrated, powerful, and pragmatical\nadministration. If Nordau had said \u201cgovernment should defend,\u201d instead\nof \u201csociety should defend,\u201d he would at least have been logical; but\nthis he could not do, because, though an enemy to personal liberty, he\nhas seen enough of German forms of government to reject the postulate\nof the Socialists regarding the infallibility of the central power;\nwhile at the same time he has a healthy contempt for the judgment of\nthe continental police. He therefore says that society must defend\nitself, and thus gives us a gratuitous piece of advice which is\nthousands of years old.\n\nHe calls upon all those who share his views to tell the enemies of\ntheir race to be gone from civilization. But will they go? Why should\nthey be more obedient than the spirits from the vasty deep? The\nadministration of society would have to be completely centralized,\nand the central Government would have to be absolutely despotic, in\norder to compel such an exodus. Even with such a Government it might\nbe extremely difficult to accomplish. The most despotic Government in\nthe world\u2014the Russian Government\u2014have encountered enormous difficulties\nin trying to expel the Jews, and this despite the fact that in this\nendeavour they had the sympathies of the majority of the Russian\npeople, and could easily ascertain who were Jews and who were not.\n\nA Government, in England for example, that would attempt to expel\npernicious authors and artists would have none of these facilities.\nThey would first have to pass an Act of Parliament\u2014the Graphomaniac,\nEgomaniac, Pornographomaniac Authors and Symbolist Artists Expulsion\nAct\u2014and at least twenty Governments would be turned out before it could\nget passed. But let us suppose that Parliament had decided on such an\nexpulsion of these offenders, then the real difficulties would begin,\nnamely, to decide who should be expelled and who should not. As to\nkilling the returning ones with clubs, this mode of execution being\nabolished among us, hanging would have to be resorted to\u2014an extremely\ndifficult operation in our days, when the abolition of capital\npunishment is more and more being considered as one of the first steps\ntowards better ethics.\n\nNordau admits that judges and the police cannot help us. The reason\nwhich he gives with regard to Germany\u2014the public contempt in which\nthe judges and police there stand\u2014does not apply in England, where our\njudges are beyond reproach, and the police is a highly respected body,\nin consequence of being less pragmatical than any police force in the\nworld. Experience in England has given us far stronger reasons for not\nusing the law and the police force against authors and artists. Each\ntime it has been done, the very works intended to be suppressed have\ngained a popularity and a circulation a thousand-fold greater than if\nthey had been left alone.\n\nInstead of tribunals and police, Nordau suggests a body similar to an\nassociation in Germany bearing the name \u201cAssociation of Men for the\nSuppression of Immorality.\u201d As he often deals with his authorities, so\nhe here deals with his model tribunal. He turns round and shows that\nthey are no good. \u201cThis association, it seems, pursues disbelief more\nthan immorality,\u201d he says. Alas! such is the way with associations\nof frail men. They are apt to leave undone those things which they\nought to have done, and to do those things which they ought not to\nhave done. Nordau here ranges himself with the crowd of sentimental\nSocialists who are so angry with the world because it cannot see\nhow easily the regeneration of humanity would become by means of an\ninfallible and almighty Government. He and they cannot see that this\ninfallible and almighty Government is the very thing beyond our reach.\nIf he had inquired logically into the causes of the disappointing\nresults produced by the \u201cAssociation of Men,\u201d he could not have\nfailed to notice that the latter were more logical than himself. This\n\u201cAssociation of Men,\u201d wanting to suppress vice by forcible action,\nexactly as Nordau would, were sensible enough to strike at the\ncauses and not at the effects. They had found that atheism, and even\nfree-thinking, generally coincided with immorality; and that on the\nother hand religious men were generally moral. Consequently, atheism\nwas found to produce immorality, and religion morality. In upholding\nreligion, therefore, they were upholding morality in a most effective\nway, because morality without religion, or at least without expressed\nreligion, is found only in men of great intellectual powers and\nscientific attainments; and to educate the mass of the people to that\npoint is, and will for a long time be, out of the question. Religion,\ntherefore, was the only choice of Nordau\u2019s \u201cAssociation of Men\u201d; and,\nif it was right to coerce people into morality, it was surely right to\ncoerce them into religion. From this it should be clear that the fault\ndoes not lie in the reasoning of this \u201cAssociation of Men,\u201d but in the\npostulate which Nordau has approved\u2014namely, the coercion of anybody by\nan \u201cAssociation of Men.\u201d\n\nHe expects the new \u201cSociety for Ethical Culture\u201d in Berlin to do\nbetter, and wishes it to constitute itself as the voluntary guardian\nof the people\u2019s morality. What an extraordinary idea! One set of\nmen guarding the morality of another set of men\u2014a small minority,\nunauthorised, unrecognised, and devoid of all physical power, to guard\nthe morality of the great majority! The London authorities could tell\nNordau a great deal about the effects of such attempts, even when the\nguardians of morality have the law and police at their back. But he\nneed not come to London to learn what guarded morality is worth, and\nwhat the results of such guardianship are. The history of every country\nteems with illustrations of the fact that every attempt to coerce\nthe people, morally or physically, into a moral life has invariably\nbrought about more hypocrisy, more secret corruption, and a tone of\ngreater immorality. If he distrusts universal experience, then he ought\nto know, as a psychologist, that, so long as the human mind and the\nhuman emotions are what they are, repression, supervision, and outside\ninterference with personal liberty must demoralize.\n\nThe composition of his society would be no guarantee whatever\nagainst deplorable effects. He proposes that it should consist of\ninstructors, professors, authors, members of Parliament, judges, and\nhigh functionaries. To begin with, authors could not be included,\nbecause they could not judge and be judged at the same time; and if the\nqualification of authors were sufficient, what would prevent authors\nof the Zola type from predominating in the association? Here, as with\nregard to original causes, Nordau fancies that he has struck solid\nground when he has removed the difficulty a stage farther back. The\nassociation is simply an instrument. All depends upon who forges it. Of\nthis he says not a word. He evidently expects it to arise as a miracle,\nlike the infallible Government of the Socialists. Were the German\nEmperor to select the members of the association\u2014which in Germany he\nwould have to do directly or indirectly\u2014he would take upon himself an\nenormous responsibility, for the fulfilment of which he would have to\nacquire the necessary information and the necessary means. He would\nsimply be to ethics what the Pope is to the Catholic religion.\n\nNordau boldly asserts that such an association would have \u201cthe power\nto exercise an irresistible \u2018boycot.\u2019\u201d Why? He evidently thinks so\nbecause his association would be an influential one. He clearly does\nnot know what ought to be an axiom to any one who meddles with social\nquestions\u2014namely, that the circulation of a condemned book increases\nin an inverse ratio to the respect which the condemning authorities\nenjoy. Thus, if his association were to consist of nobodies and were to\ncondemn a book, the condemnation would only increase the circulation\na little; but if it were to consist of the leading men of the German\nEmpire, the condemned book would be read all over the world. In\nthe matter of public censors nothing is of any avail that is not\nabsolutely despotic. By allowing Government and police to exercise\nall kinds of violence, isolated newspaper paragraphs and leaders can\nbe suppressed before they are published, and the open circulation of\ncondemned books may be prevented. But once the public get hold of the\ncontents of an article and the name of a book, a secret circulation\nat once sets in. Eyewitnesses who were in France when the French\nGovernment confiscated and prohibited Edmond About\u2019s _La Question\nRomaine_ can relate the eagerness with which this book was read, and\ntell of the numbers of copies circulated secretly. We cite this example\nfrom the continent, as it corroborates what always happens in England.\n\nNordau fondly imagines that the judgment of his association would\nabsolutely \u201cannihilate\u201d not only the book, but the author. The\ncontrary would happen. As long as there is a grain of love of liberty\nin humanity, the condemnation by an authority of a man\u2019s book will\nmake him the object of public sympathy. When Nordau says that \u201cno\nrespectable bookseller would keep the condemned book, no respectable\npaper would mention it,\u201d his meaning entirely depends on his standard\nof respectability\u2014one of those standards he absolutely refuses to\ngive us. Every one knows that there are respectable booksellers and\npapers, and that there are non-respectable booksellers and papers.\nBut who could undertake to draw the line of demarcation between the\ntwo categories? In a small German town where there are only one or\ntwo booksellers this line is easily drawn. But how about places like\nBerlin, Hamburg, Paris, Vienna, and London? Besides, a bookseller and\na newspaper might be highly respectable, but differ diametrically from\nan association which would have Nordau\u2019s approval. Surely he would not\npush his mania so far as to deny a respectable character to all the\nbooksellers and newspapers who, for instance, refuse to boycot Ibsen?\n\nNordau also thinks that the specialists in insanity should come out of\ntheir shells and publicly denounce the degenerate authors and artists.\nIn England, for example, he thinks that Maudsley could exercise a\nhealthy influence. But he would be surprised at the small number of\npeople in England, outside the profession, who read works on mental\ndisease. _Degeneration_ has been widely read; but this is because it\nlevels startling accusations against well-known authors and artists,\nand because it purports to give a novel scientific interpretation of\nfamiliar phenomena, with the purpose of turning our opinions with\nregard to some branches of art and literature topsy-turvy. It is\nnot to science alone that it owes its wide circulation, but to the\nclever\u2014conscious or unconscious\u2014sophistries it contains. English\npsychologists and specialists in insanity could not afford to launch\nout after the manner of Nordau. They might secure a certain number\nof readers; but they would lose their patients. A specialist who came\nbefore the public with Nordau\u2019s artless and ill-considered scheme\nfor the defence of society against its enemies, could not hope to be\ntaken seriously by an English public. In England we have had a too\nlarge experience of books with a tendency, of log-rolling, of veiled\nadvertisement, and of sly party thrusts, to be influenced by such a\nsuggestion of lunacy against political opponents as is contained in\nthe following sentence from Nordau: \u201cA Maudsley in England, a Charcot,\na Magnan in France, a Lombroso, a Tonnini in Italy, have brought to\nvast circles of people an understanding of the obscure phenomena in\nthe life and the mind, and disseminated knowledge which would make it\nimpossible in those countries for pronounced lunatics with the mania\nfor persecution to gain an influence over hundreds of thousands of\ncitizens.\u201d\n\nIt is impossible for us to imagine an English specialist in insanity\nattributing the absence of anti-semitism in England to his own\nwritings, or those of other psychologists, as Nordau does in this\nsentence. If the German electors can believe such a wild party\ndistortion, they are not the men we take them for. We have already\nexplained the causes of the existence of anti-semitism in Germany,\nand of its absence in England. We do not expect that Nordau will\nacknowledge our view to be right. For had he not been so entirely the\ncreature of prejudice on this, as on many other subjects outside his\nspecialty, he would, unassisted, have discovered so obvious a truth.\n\nEnglishmen are not less anxious than he to defend society against its\nenemies; but only the most inexperienced and illogical Englishman would\nrecommend such remedies as our alienist seems to consider as the height\nof wisdom. Though we have been slow about it, we seem at last to have\ngrasped the not very hidden truth that if society\u2014that is to say, the\npeople\u2014is moral enough to elect an association capable of acting as\nan ethical censor over art and literature, we believe the people also\ncapable of exercising that censorship directly, instead of indirectly\nthrough an association. This censorship by the people themselves has\nthe immense advantage of working unostentatiously and silently, and\nwithout advertising the very work that should be suppressed.\n\nWe think it futile to condemn, or even to suppress, a work; and on\ngrounds of expediency only, regardless of principle, to club the\nsinning author. The source from which the condemned work sprang would\nyield more such works, and the circumstances which had produced the\nobjectionable author would produce more objectionable authors. These,\nas well as their works, are the symptoms of a social malady, and we\nshould treat them as such. We have ceased to apply to society the old\nmethods, long since abandoned by the medical profession, of curing an\nevil by means of violent suppression of the symptoms\u2014methods adhered to\nby Nordau with regard to society, but, let us hope, not with regard to\nhis patients.\n\nWe leave the symptoms alone: for they allow us to diagnose the evil,\nand we go for the causes. In looking for them, we try to keep our\nminds free from such prejudices as influence Nordau\u2019s logic. We\nshould not cry out for new ethical standards, for new and impossible\nmoral authorities, while we ruthlessly destroy a standard and an\nauthority\u2014religion\u2014the practical usefulness of which could not be\nreplaced for centuries by any new standard or authority, even if\ninvented now.\n\nRecognising the truth in Voltaire\u2019s flippant saying, that if God did\nnot exist we should have to invent Him, we do not, as the superstitious\nscientists do, first abolish Him and then re-invent Him in the clumsy\nform of a \u201cmechanical causality.\u201d We let the holders of the ominous\nrings\u2014of which Nathan der Weiser told Saladin\u2014do their utmost to prove\nby virtue and happiness that they hold the magic ring conferring these\nprivileges. It matters little to us whether the genuine ring be the\nChristian one, the Jewish one, or the scientists\u2019, so long as the\nbelief in the holders of each of the rings stimulates them to prove\nits genuineness. We would not tell the great majority who pin their\nfaith to the Christian ring\u2014even if we believe it to be spurious\u2014that\nwe can prove it to be worthless, and that the scientists\u2019 ring alone\nwill bring salvation: for we know that this ring is beyond the reach of\nmost of them, and that, handled in the wrong way, it will work curses\ninstead of blessings. We limit ourselves to telling them that the rings\nheld by the others must not be despised until the Great Competition is\nadjudicated.\n\nIn our quest for the causes of degeneration, we do not begin by trying\nto discover traces of lunacy in a small number of prominent citizens.\nWe bear in mind that these are either isolated cases, or types of a\ngenerally prevailing tendency. In the first case, we leave them alone;\nin the second, we search for the cause of this tendency. If we find\nthat the tendency, let us say, toward hysteria, or egomania, in the\nupper classes is being produced by a craving for excitement, unhealthy\npleasures, or artificial sensations, and by a frivolous and empty life,\nwe set about to discover the causes of this craving and this empty life.\n\nIf we again discover that the cause is found in the decay of the\nbeliefs in personal responsibility, in the importance of philanthropy,\nmorality, and patriotism, we try to discover why these beliefs have\ndecayed. If it be found that they have decayed simultaneously with\nand in consequence of the decay of the authority of the Church, we\ntry either to strengthen the influence of the Church by purifying and\nreforming it, or we replace its dogmas and its doctrines by a healthy\nand moral philosophy.\n\nShould we find, on the other hand, that the deplorable state among the\npoorer classes\u2014their suffering, their degradation, and their joyless\nlives, co-existing with large fortunes, and irremediable under present\nlaws and institutions\u2014leads to the conclusion that the altruistic\nfeelings of the wealthy are useless, and thus prompt among the upper\nclasses selfishness and egomania, and the determination to drown\ntheir higher emotions in a giddy life, and in the poorer classes to\nfoster destructive tendencies and the desire for revenge, we turn our\nattention to social remedies.\n\nNo one can turn his attention to the social state of the working class\nin England, and throughout the world, without discovering a host of\nmotors active in the production of dire misery, and all the mental\nand moral degradation that follows in its train\u2014a degradation which\naggravates the misery, and reacts, as we have shown, on the upper\nclasses. Nothing will more actively stay the progress of any mental\ndegeneration which might be going on than the removal of the causes of\nthe awful misery suffered by such an alarming proportion of civilized\nhumanity. Nordau\u2019s warning against mental decay and progression towards\nfolly will, we hope, quicken, if not the higher emotions, at least the\nsense of self-preservation among the leading classes throughout the\nworld. But it must be regretted that he, not only in his suggestion of\nremedies, but in many other parts of his work, displays a lack of logic\nand a want of clear perception as soon as he quits the narrow precincts\nof his special science and the teachings of his manifold authorities,\nand falls back on his own reasoning powers. Had he prevented his\nprejudices from colouring his views, and had he not sacrificed logic\nfor brilliancy, his work would have been of no slight assistance to\nthose who are helping on humanity in its staggering onward movement.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\n_VIGOROUS AFFIRMATIONS_\n\n\nIt has come to our knowledge that a great number of people in this\ncountry who have read through the whole of Nordau\u2019s bulky volume have\ncarried away an impression far from pleasant. Indeed, there are few\nmen or women in a country like England who might not, on some plea or\nanother, come under the suspicion of mental degeneration, if all that\nNordau says were, regardless of his contradictions, accepted as true.\nIn this country education and morality are based entirely on religious\nprinciples, and most of the inhabitants are, either by faith or by\ndint of sincere philosophical inquiry, to some extent religionists.\nAll these might think themselves included among those whom Nordau\nstigmatises as degenerates. There are also a great number who admire\nintensely Burne Jones, Rossetti, and many other painters of the same\nschool, and all these have been told, with somewhat brutal frankness,\nthat they are on the road to lunacy. The pieces of Ibsen have a great\nnumber of admirers who have welcomed with pleasure the additional\nintelligence and interest which he has infused into the drama, and who\nconsequently have been pointed out as degenerate imbeciles.\n\nIn the light of these facts there remain few educated persons among\nthe upper classes of this country about whose intellectual soundness\nNordau\u2019s work might not raise doubts. This all the more so as his\nfew reservations with regard to people who have demonstrated their\nsanity by practical ability to conduct their own affairs, sink into\ninsignificance among his voluminous and wholesale accusations,\nespecially as such reservations are forgotten almost as soon as they\nare made.\n\nThis wholesale issue of certificates of madness would not have mattered\nso much if his work did not carry with it a certain power of conviction\nwhich tells especially with the weak, uninstructed mind, and with\npeople who have not read his work with special attention. In fact, we\nknow cases of people of sensitive mind who imagine that, thanks to\nNordau\u2019s book, their friends will look upon them as on the road to\nlunacy.\n\nThere can be little doubt that the strong impression the book has made,\nsometimes in one way and sometimes in another, is largely due to the\nstyle adopted by its author. The secret of this style is revealed in\nthe chapter \u201cPrognosis,\u201d where he describes with somewhat elephantine\nhumour the effects in the twentieth century of the present progressing\ndegeneration. He says, among other things, that companies of men will\nbe formed who \u201cby vigorous affirmations are charged to tranquillize\npersons afflicted with the mania of doubt, when taken by a fit of\nnervousness.\u201d\n\nSuch a piece of prophecy could only enter the head of a man who has had\npractical experience of the great effect produced on nervous people by\nvigorous affirmations, and, having had this experience, Nordau fills\nhis volume with such \u201cvigorous affirmations.\u201d His method has succeeded\nall the better as he evidently belongs to that class of powerful and\nstrong-willed men who, when once they have formed an opinion, hold to\nit tenaciously, and count as nothing any conviction against their will.\n\nHaving followed Nordau through his vigorous crusade against that score\nof people whom he regards as dangerous enemies to humanity, and having\npointed out a host of his logical errors, erroneous perceptions,\nunsound postulates, and exaggerated representations, we propose before\nclosing this volume to examine some of the reasoning methods which give\nhim his apparent strength.\n\nIt is to him of great moment that his readers shall not believe in the\nexistence of the thinking and feeling _Ego_ as a person, apart from\nthe organic mechanism which conveys impressions and presentations to\nthe _Ego_. He uses all the arguments which that school of thinkers to\nwhich he belongs has piled up in order to show that mind is a condition\nof matter. He says nothing about the arguments on the other side, but\ntreats them as the science of the past. He takes for granted, without\nshowing a vestige of doubt, that human beings are nothing but organic\nmechanisms. He does not even refer to, or allow that there is, anything\nbeyond the present scientific discoveries, and scornfully ignores the\nexistence of what less prejudiced scientists call the Unknowable. He\nthus treats a question which still trembles in the balance as if it\nwere already decided in favour of his pet theories.\n\nThe attitude which biologists and psychologists take up as such, and\nwith the special purpose of proceeding in their investigations with\nperfectly unbiassed minds, Nordau assumes as a philosopher, and tries\nto persuade himself and others that he has taken his stand on absolute\nfacts. Science proceeds on the supposition that only that is true\nwhich has been proved so by demonstrations to our senses, or through\ndeductions from such demonstrations. This, of course, is a postulate\nthe illogicality of which most scientific men are aware of, and is\nadopted mostly for the purpose, as it were, of clearing the ground. To\nassume, apart from their investigating attitude, that there is nothing\nmore to know than what is already known, would be an utterly absurd\nassumption, as it would, if acted upon, preclude further investigation.\n\nNordau does not, and would not, deny that there is more to learn,\nbut he persists in the view that all future knowledge will be on the\nlines of our present knowledge, and never contradictory to the present\nprevailing scientific dogmas. He remains under this impression, because\nhe forgets that science has progressed, progresses, and, as far as we\nsee now, always will progress through investigations by our senses,\nand that this fact brings two important truths conspicuously into\nrelief. The first, that our senses are liable to deceive us, and that\nconsequently the difference between primitive views\u2014the result of\nimperfect observation\u2014and the scientific opinions of the day is not one\nof kind, but simply one of degree. In olden times the senses deceived\nus very much, and nowadays they deceive us less. But to what an extent\nthey deceive us now the future alone can reveal. The second, that\nscience with the present methods cannot investigate anything that does\nnot appeal to our senses.\n\nTo deny the existence of anything that does not appeal directly to our\nsenses is absurd, because we should have to deny all the forces of\nnature. The existence of these can only be detected by their effects.\nThe more science teaches us about forces, the more the view gains\nadherence that the forces are not a state of matter, but a thing apart,\nif matter is not a state of force. Even if this view should prove to be\ncorrect, the error it would dispel, that force is a state of matter,\nwould be pardonable, as force only has come within the perception of\nour senses through its effect on matter.\n\nPsychology has to some extent succeeded in tracing and in describing\ncertain forces which are at work in our nerves and our brains, such\nas, for example, reveal themselves in the reception and elaboration\nof presentations. But within every human being there are well-known\nphenomena which tell of forces\u2014or of one general force\u2014which so far\nhave escaped all investigation. These phenomena are emotion, judgment,\nwill.\n\nAttentive readers of Nordau\u2019s books will have noticed that, in\nhis scientific dissertations on the actions of the brain, these\nfactors\u2014emotion, judgment, will\u2014turn up suddenly without the slightest\nexplanation as to whence they come and what they are, though they seem\nto completely determine the action of the whole organism. It is with\nthis enormous gap in their chain of reasoning that some scientists,\nwith more learning than logic, jump to the conclusion that the thinking\nand feeling _Ego_ is only a state of matter.\n\nNordau, being anxious, as we have already mentioned, to magnify the\nimportance of his psychological theories by undermining his readers\u2019\nbelief in the existence of anything unscientifically called \u201csoul\u201d or\n\u201cspirit,\u201d renders his task easier by attacking religion, of which the\nbelief in the existence of the spiritual _Ego_ is a vital part. He\nknows that if he can compass the rejection of the idea of religion\nhe kills two birds with one stone. He gets rid of the personal _Ego_\nas well as the belief in eternal life, both of which, if admitted to\nbe realities, would strongly point to an intelligent Providence the\nexistence of which would be a colossal impediment to the glorification\nof science and of scientists.\n\nThe way in which he strives to undermine religious belief is ingenious\nand often effective. He trusts chiefly to the historical argument. He\ngoes back to primitive man in order to show that he, in his ignorance\nof nature, attributed those natural phenomena which strongly impressed\nhim to some man mightier than himself. Nordau tries to show that out\nof this belief arose what he would call superstition, the several\nforms of religion. He here of course appeals to feeling more than to\nreason. People do not like to feel that they have remained in the\ndepth of ignorance of the primitive savage, and might feel disposed\nto join the glorious company of the apostles of science. But if we\nuse our reasoning powers we cannot fail to perceive that science has\nmerely taught us the methods by which, and the laws according to which,\nnature works, and that as to the forces behind the laws of nature the\nscientist is as ignorant as the primitive savage.\n\nNordau also pursues that diplomatic course\u2014or commits the error\u2014as\nwe have already pointed out, of confounding religion with the\nChurches. It is easy to inspire distrust in religion if it be permitted\nto consider Pope Borgia, Ignatius Loyola, and Dr. St\u00f6cker as its\ninevitable results. By analyzing, to some extent distorting the essence\nof ritual, Nordau seeks to point out that Christian worship is not only\nsheer imbecility, but also an insult to the supposed God. He never\nnotices such discrepancies between the Churches and religion as are,\nfor example, revealed by the anti-semitist movement in Germany, which\nnaturally he keenly resents. From the defects, the shortcomings, the\nsuperstitions, the antiquated dogmas of the Churches, he tries to draw\nthe sweeping conclusion that a belief in an intelligent Providence, in\nthe existence of a soul, and in a spiritual life independent of the\nbody is the outcome of degenerate mental powers.\n\nThe views that by such means he endeavours to impose upon his readers\nmean that man, being an organic mechanism, ceases to exist when he\ndies. If this be so, there is no personal responsibility, and only that\nman would be wise, rational, undegenerate, who so arranges his life\nthat he may live long, keep in good health, and enjoy all the pleasures\nthat he desires, be they noble or ignoble. To test, then, whether a man\nwho is, who believes he is, or merely poses as, a disbeliever in future\nresponsibility, we ought to examine how he regulates his life. Only in\nthis manner can we discover to what an extent he is influenced\u2014to use\nNordau\u2019s own language\u2014by the inherited tendencies to worship lurking\nsomewhere in the innermost recesses of his consciousness, or, to use\nour own language, by the instinctive feeling of personal responsibility\nwhich has characterized humanity in every stage of barbarism and\ncivilization.\n\nThe fact that a great many scientists, including Nordau, do not live\nas if they were perfectly convinced of the non-existence of personal\nresponsibility beyond the grave, requires quite a different kind of\nexplanation than that generally afforded, before we abandon the belief\nthat they are self-deceivers. The moral scientists themselves have\nfound the necessity of some explanation, and this is what they say,\nthough perhaps in other words: \u201cWe do not believe in any responsibility\nbeyond the grave, but we do what we think our duty to humanity. We\nshould be sorry and ashamed to be actuated by a fear of punishment or\nthe desire for reward, and not to do what is right and good for the\nsake of the right and the good.\u201d\n\nThis sounds very beautiful, but too boastful almost to be accepted\nas the bare truth. Some of them who are aware of this, or who are\ngenuinely too modest to thus stand forward as demi-gods, add: \u201cIn\nliving and acting as we do, and wanting others to live and to act in\nthe same way, we are not more unselfish, nor morally better, than\nothers. We are only wiser; in fact, more intellectually selfish. And\nall we desire of other people is that they should be intellectually\nselfish. In exercising self-control and devotion to others, we do not\ndeprive ourselves of pleasures and enjoyments, because most of these\ncome to us from our surroundings and from society at large. For what\nwe do for our wives and families, we get love in return; for what we\ndo for society and the race, we get two rewards: firstly, esteem and\nreputation, perhaps money; and, secondly, all the social advantages\nwhich are valuable to us in the same proportion as society is in a\nhealthy state.\u201d\n\nThis seems highly convincing, but it does not by far cover the whole\nground. Whoever has studied our times well knows that a man can secure\nfor himself, and even for his family and friends, enormous advantages\nby disregarding and violating the interests and moral rights of others,\nand also that, when wholesale rascality succeeds, when it is productive\nof great wealth, great social and political power, it also secures\nesteem and reputation. There are, of course, men in positions, the\nstock-in-trade of which consists in honesty and even philanthropy; but\nthere are others, and millions of them, who could, under the present\nsocial systems of the world, amass fortunes and rise to distinction by\nsystematic robbery. Thousands of cases could be stated in proof of the\nfact that, in the absence of the belief in responsibility after death,\nselfishness will prompt men to hurt their fellow-beings and society in\norder to secure money, power, and reputation for themselves. Take the\ncase of a poor labourer who, in the usual course, will work and suffer\nduring his whole life and die in poverty. To escape such a destiny\nmany roads are open to him if he have courage, exceptional ability,\nand no belief in a hereafter. He could commit a variety of crimes in\norder to give him a start in life without the slightest chance of\nbeing detected, and without experiencing the smallest inconvenience\nduring his lifetime. He might even avoid violent and vulgar crimes,\nand operate in a safer manner. He might blackmail a rich man. He\nmight in war betray his country. He might sell himself to a corrupt\npolitical party. He might join the army of some selfish sovereign bent\non conquest and plunder, and gain a high position. Or he might pursue\nyet safer methods. He might turn first a usurer, then a financier. He\nmight keep a degrading public-house, or a gigantic immoral place of\namusement. He might issue a debasing newspaper, write corrupting books\nand dramatic pieces. Provided he does not expose himself to the hatred,\ncontempt, and even the unfavourable criticism of his fellow-beings,\nor injure his health, there is positively nothing to prevent him from\nadopting all these courses to the great detriment of humanity, so long\nas he is perfectly sure that he shall not be called to account after\ndeath.\n\nWhat some of our scientists forget is that very few people are in\nthe same position as they themselves are, where respectability and\nquasi-philanthropy pay; but, on the contrary, that the great majority\nlive under the constant temptation to secure wealth, health, esteem,\nand reputation by means which are injurious to society. To such\narguments they can only reply that the man, however successful, who\nattains his success by anti-social means runs a risk of ruining the\nhappiness of his life by loss of self-respect.\n\nBut, if the man has a conscience,\u2014and he could not lose his\nself-respect without one,\u2014it could not trouble him so long as he was\nconvinced that he had done the best for himself. By bringing the\nconscience at all into the discussion, the scientists fall back on an\nemotion which has been always intimately associated with the sense of\npersonal responsibility, and which they themselves have been compelled,\nin order to protect their theories, to deny absolutely as an instinct\nor to represent as the result of religious education.\n\nFor this reason, Nordau would not call that instinct in man which\nprompts him to live and act morally\u2014an instinct which is the original\nmotor of all moral progress\u2014conscience. He would probably prefer to\ncall it the social instinct. But names matter little. The essential\npoint is, that there exists in man\u2019s consciousness a strong instinct\nwhich cannot be reasoned away. This instinct is intimately connected\nwith another, without which it would never have produced the results\nwe see around us\u2014namely, the instinct that the _Ego_ is imperishable.\nNo one would deny the universal existence of this instinct, but plenty\nof scientists, while acknowledging it as an inherited tendency, would\ndeny it any value as an argument in favour of the immortality of the\n_Ego_, on the ground that a hazy, unreasoned, and utterly inexplicable\nyearning need not have a distinct goal.\n\nThe instinct of human beings is a subject which has been very much\nneglected by science, and for the good reason that, whatever instincts\nmay be natural to man, they have been carefully smothered by teachings,\nexamples, and experience, all appealing to his reason from infancy\nupwards. He never uses, never tries, and never suspects the existence\nof his instincts, and when accidentally they lead him right, he\nregards the fact as a delusion, and even avoids mentioning it from\na fear of being laughed at. This has however not prevented men, and\noften remarkable men, from being guided by their instincts; only it\nis called feeling, taste, luck. There are examples of men who owe the\ngreater part of their success to instinctive feeling, and who have\ncommitted great mistakes by having trusted too much to it. Besides it\nis generally believed that women\u2019s instincts are clear and trustworthy,\nand many men consider themselves to have been largely benefited by\nconsulting them.\n\nBut, in order to get at a true appreciation of the value and power of\ninstincts, we must go to the animals. What else but instinct could we\ncall the feeling which allows the carrier-pigeon to find its way from\nLondon to Paris in an atmosphere of darkness and fog which would render\nit impossible for the most experienced mariner to distinguish between\nnorth and south. It is a well-known fact that dogs and even cats that\nhave been left behind by their owners have followed them at great\ndistances, though the owner has gone by rail or water and the animal\nhas had to find its way across country. In face of such facts and\nconsiderations, no man who has not a strong bias would suggest that an\ninstinct that is general to humanity need not be heeded.\n\nThe instinct of personal responsibility cannot be re-christened\nsocial instinct and then minimised by the assertion that the social\ninstinct is the outcome of reason, the sense of self-preservation, and\nintelligent selfishness: for in that case the poor labourer who wanted\nto become wealthy and famous, as instanced above, could be as evil as\nhe liked so long as he was successful, and could not be restrained by\nthe social instinct, but only by conscience, or in other words, the\nfeeling of unlimited personal responsibility.\n\nAtheistic scientists who lead a moral and useful life cannot hold\nthemselves up as a pattern of results produced by social instincts,\nbecause in the great majority of men, placed differently, these\ninstincts would permit them to injure society to an enormous extent.\nNor does the assertion of these scientists bear the stamp of sincerity\nwhen they say: \u201cBehold us, we have no belief in personal responsibility\nbeyond the grave. And yet we labour and run risks for the good of\nhumanity. We sacrifice our time, our money, our health for others,\nand we remain poor while we could be rich. Our life is the outcome of\nintelligent selfishness.\u201d\n\nThey would have a better chance of convincing us if they said: \u201cLife\nafter death is impossible. We prove by our lives that we believe this.\nOur moral lives and our humanitarianism are sheer hypocrisy which we\npractise in order to get esteem and fame. The books we write are not\ntrue, but they bring us money, and we do not care how much evil we\ninflict on humanity by ripping away the only foundation on which its\nmorality and happiness can be built, while the substitute which we\nsupply is worthless. We might have averted an immense amount of vice\nand degradation by leaving old religions alone until the Religion of\nHumanity was perfect enough to replace them. But we attack them now\nbecause in this way we make money and fame.\u201d\n\nIt is not the well-meaning, plodding scientist, striving to arrest\ndisease, lessen pain, and dispel superstition, that can bounce us into\nthe belief in personal irresponsibility. This could only be done by\nreal flesh-and-blood Ducs des Esseintes, men like the hero in Huysman\u2019s\nnovel, _A Rebours_. This author, whom Nordau classes among drivelling\nimbeciles, has shown that he has a clearer idea than our clever\nalienist what type of men the certitude of personal irresponsibility\ncould produce. We are fully convinced that Nordau is no Duc des\nEsseintes at heart, masquerading as a benefactor of humanity, and,\nif he boasts a little of his good intentions and not at all of his\nwickedness, it is because he believes that what he does is right,\nand does it because he is prompted by that strong sense of personal\nresponsibility which his scientific prejudices and his lack of logical\npower cause him to deny.\n\nHaving striven by \u201cvigorous affirmations\u201d to implant the belief in\nhis readers\u2019 minds that they have no _Ego_ independent of their body,\nand that they consequently are fatally doomed to become what their\ndefective brains and nerves are bound to make them, he proceeds with\nanother series of \u201cvigorous affirmations,\u201d that degeneration is on the\nincrease, that it is characteristic of the end of the century, that\nthe men whom we take for geniuses are mattoids, and finally, that the\nwhole of our western civilization is degenerate. We have, in preceding\nchapters, tried to show how he has neglected to pay any attention to\nthe many signs all over the civilized world indicating an increase in\nmental and moral powers; how he endeavours to overwhelm his readers by\ncomparisons between the symptoms in real degenerates, or lunatics, and\nsimilar symptoms\u2014accompanied however by perfect rationality and great\nintelligence\u2014in authors and artists, and concludes that they are as mad\nas the madman. He tries to force this conclusion on the unwary reader\nby simply ignoring all other grounds for eccentricity that would have\nbeen taken into account by an unbiassed enquirer.\n\nLet us instance the way in which he judges Zola. He never for an\ninstant regards him as a free agent, but speaks of him as a patient\nsuffering from erotic madness and other brain and nerve affections,\nwhich compel the novelist to write, and to write exactly in the vein he\ndoes.\n\nThe very idea that human beings should be thus subjected to all kinds\nof irresistible impulses produces the same gruesome impression as\nthe old stories of demoniacal possession. Nordau might as well have\ndescribed Zola as a man hating above all things the writing of novels,\nwith a natural repugnance for anything savouring of the obscene,\ncompelled by a demon in possession of his body and his soul to write\nthe history of the Rougeon-Maquarts and other distasteful works. On\nthe careful reader the impression would have been precisely the same.\nBut no number of \u201cvigorous affirmations\u201d would have induced even the\nmost weak-minded of readers to have accepted the demon, while Zola\u2019s\neroticism and his mischievous olfactory nerves may have imprinted\nthemselves upon the minds of some by dint of scientific dissertation.\n\nWhile it would seem to most people rational to study Zola\u2019s character\nand the state of his mind, in order to form a correct idea of the\nobjects he has in view, Nordau, by his method of supposing that a\nwriter is not a free agent, but is compelled to exhibit for the readers\nof his works the innermost recesses of his consciousness, proceeds in\nthe opposite manner: he evolves the characters of writers from the\ncharacters of their books. From what he says about Zola, one feels\ninclined to conclude that this author devotes the large amounts he\nmakes by his writings to the gratification of bestial lusts, living in\na kind of harem of degraded women, rapidly destroying by debauch every\nspark of intelligence left in his tottering brain. We do not know M.\nZola personally, but from what we hear, he seems to live a quiet and\nlaborious life with his wife in a peaceful country house, and far from\nspending his earnings in riotous living, he banks them as a reserve\nfor old age, which he seems likely to attain. When however a man\u2019s\nprivate life and rational attention to his own business seem to clash\nconspicuously with Nordau\u2019s diagnoses, his serenity and self-confidence\nare not in the slightest degree disturbed, because he has given his\ndescription to the man\u2019s tendency in a \u201cpsychiatric sense,\u201d and has\nreferred to the man\u2019s actual life. But the discrepancy between the\nauthor\u2019s actual life and the life he, according to Nordau, ought to\nlead, is not an extenuating circumstance in the eyes of so harsh a\njudge as our alienist. On the contrary, it aggravates the sentence, for\nif the accused author is not in reality the monster he ought to be, it\nis simply because his attenuated physique does not allow of it, and\ndrives him through all his debaucheries in his imagination.\n\nWe do not admire such literature as Zola has put forth, and do not\nbelieve that it has accomplished one iota of the good at which\nits author, according to his admirers, aims. But all rational men\nshould bear in mind that such books are sure indications that there\nis something rotten in the State. To ascertain to what an extent\nthe circumstances surrounding the author are capable of inducing a\nsound-minded man like Zola to write such books, before jumping to the\nconclusion that such authors are lunatics, would be the method adopted\nby sincere searchers after truth.\n\nA rapid survey of the circumstances under which Zola began to write\nwill at once show that the inborn eroticism and even coprolalia which\nNordau tries to foist upon Zola were not the only influences to which\nhe was subjected. In Paris, as in all great capitals, there is a\nhost of young ambitious _litt\u00e9rateurs_ who compete for the attention\nnot only of the public but of the publishers. It is far from certain\nthat the books which most please the public would be most acceptable\nto the publishers, and the latter are, therefore, to a great extent\nresponsible for the state of literature. Nordau says that M. Alphonse\nLemerre was able to make Parnassians, as the editor, Cotta, in the\nfirst half of the century, made German classics; and he is right. A\nParisian publisher has the power to make pornographic authors just\nas well as Parnassians. He is a business man, and of course wishes\nto obtain a large circulation for his books, and, therefore, is on\nthe look-out for authors who are sensational one way or another. At\nthe time Zola began to write, the obscene novel was beginning to be\nfashionable. Paul de Kock and his imitators had become old-fashioned,\nand the corruption of the Third Empire, as well as the spread of\nscientific atheism, had created a demand for something racier than the\npeccadilloes of light-hearted _viveurs_. Besides, pessimism was in the\nascendant, and erotic literature had to be morbid instead of gallant\nand gay.\n\nSeveral authors of great ability, but strongly influenced by the\npessimism of the time, and with the field of their ethical studies\nlimited to the Parisian boulevards and the Quartier Breda, had paved\nthe way for that false realistic literature of which Zola\u2019s writing may\nbe called the climax. The publishers, knowing their market, were eager\nto accept books of an obscene character, provided they were serious\nand written in a philosophical spirit. Zola may have seen his way to\neclipse anything written in that style, and being himself a child of\nhis time,\u2014materialist, and nervously inclined to exaggeration,\u2014may have\nseized upon the chance of making money and fame, though he probably\nforesaw that his first novels would expose him to the execration of the\nPhilistines and the respectable world. He might also have foreseen that\none day he would be able to establish a sufficient fame to be received\nby English _litt\u00e9rateurs_ as a genius of his time. If, therefore,\nZola\u2019s object was to push himself to the front in the manner we here\nsuppose him to have done, he has certainly succeeded\u2014a fact which\ncould not establish his intellectual degradation. He simply yielded to\na tremendous temptation, and if he did so under the impression that\nthe scientists had completely proved the non-existence of personal\nresponsibility, Nordau should be the last to blame him.\n\nBut there is not the slightest necessity to assume\u2014nor do we\nassume\u2014that Zola yielded to any temptation at all. On the contrary, it\nis perfectly possible that, in writing the books he has, he sincerely\nbelieved that he was serving some good purpose. Knowing how many other\nFrenchmen feel in this respect, we might well suppose that he reasoned\nsomewhat in the following manner: Religion is wrong, and a fraud\npractised by the clever on the simple-minded. The control which the\nChurch has assumed over the relations of the sexes is one of the means\nby which it retains its power, and is fraught with immense unhappiness\nto the people. The separation of the sexes, and the devout decency\nwhich refrains from openly speaking or writing about sexual subjects,\ndistort the people\u2019s ideas, inflame their imagination, and tempt them\ninto unhealthy vice. Nature is not sinful. It is either the only\ndivinity we have, or it is created by the Almighty, and in this case it\nis holy. To yield rationally to its dictates is therefore no sin. Books\nshould therefore be written to prove this point, and at the same time\naccustom the people to look upon nature and its laws without shame,\nwithout hypocrisy, and without running the risk of being overpowered by\nwild passions. In this way humanity may be elevated, because it will\nbe frank and natural, and religion, which science has proved to be\ninimical to humanity, will lose its influence.\n\nWe are not saying that Zola\u2019s ideas ran in this groove, only that it is\npossible that they did. If they did, he would have been utterly wrong;\nbut he would not have been the first nor the last man whose views have\nbeen influenced by his interests. No man who knows both France and\nEngland better than Nordau seems to do could for one moment doubt that\nhad Zola been born and educated in England, where the surroundings are\nso vastly different to those of France, he would have written books\nof quite a different character, and probably free from obscenity.\nIf this be true, it constitutes another reason why the surrounding\ncircumstances of an author should be considered before it is asserted\nthat inborn degeneration is alone responsible for the blemishes of his\nwork.\n\nNordau himself points out that the fashion which brought Zola to the\nfront is on the decline, and that his influence is on the wane. If so,\nit only proves how limited the influence of such supposed degenerates\nreally is, and that\u2014at least with regard to Zola\u2014Nordau\u2019s book is out\ntoo late, and those who have been deeply impressed by his \u201cvigorous\naffirmations\u201d about the mental decay of the race need not despond.\n\nOver and over again civilization and society have been threatened\nby new and apparently dangerous tendencies, but they have generally\nculminated in absurd exaggerations, and have thus lost their potency.\nWho knows whether Zola, through the wisdom that the years bring, will\nnot change his opinions, and with them his vein of writing? We feel\nmorally certain that he is now engaged on some novel entirely free from\nthose erotic allusions which Nordau says he cannot avoid\u2014a book as\npure as the first part of _La Joie de Vivre_; and if he does, what will\nbecome of Nordau\u2019s imperious dogmas?\n\nAnother of those features of Nordau\u2019s work which strongly impresses\nhis readers is seriousness. He speaks throughout in that grave and\nsolemn tone\u2014the So-spake-the-Lord style\u2014which never yet failed to\nimpress superficial readers. He is anxious to convey the impression\nthat if he has to say unpleasant things it is because his teachings are\nmomentous to humanity, and not because he wishes to be sensational. He\ncondescends to speak about poetry, drama, and music, but he plainly\nshows it to be his opinion that all these are vanities, and hardly\nworthy to occupy a great man\u2019s thoughts. He aims at crushing with his\ncontempt both artists and poets, the whole herd who have neglected\nscience, and who try to divert the attention of humanity from this\nall-important subject. He would scare us with the threat that, when\nscience has elevated humanity for a little longer, such frivolities as\npoetry, music, and dancing will be relegated to the nursery. Grown-up\nmen and women, who now indulge in such pastimes, are made to feel\nthat they belong to degenerates, and that they only prove their folly\nif they look upon themselves with any self-respect. He endeavours to\ndeprive love between persons of the two sexes of its poetical reality,\nand to wrap it in a gloomy scientific misconception by regarding it as\na feeling of comradeship grown out of habit, or as the same sexual\ninstinct as in animals. The pure and real love which permeates life,\nwhich gives to man his manhood, and to woman her true womanhood, which\nhas created the home and therefore the State\u2014this love he denies, and\nexpects serious-minded readers to look upon the world-phenomenon and\nthe drama of humanity deprived of their chief elements\u2014light, heat, and\nmotion. He speaks of the tendency in men and women to take their own\nlife when its burdens out-balance its pleasures as calmly as if suicide\nwere the usual exit from our earthly existence.\n\nNordau thus obtains part of his success by the same methods as those so\nfreely adopted by the gloomy, anathematising preachers\u2014rapidly becoming\ntypes of the past\u2014who, by threats of the devil and hell-fire, aim at\ncompelling their hearers to turn their attention from this world in\norder to brood exclusively on dismal dogmas. He would fain banish from\nour minds all that appeals to what is truest within us\u2014our imagination\nand our emotions,\u2014as the kill-joy fanatics in the pulpit have banished\nfrom our villages the maypole, the dance on the green, and the forfeit\ngame.\n\nHe is much mistaken if he believes that by such means he can in our\ndays produce a lasting impression on the common-sense and intensely\nhuman English mind. Here and there he may drive some clouded soul into\nneo-Catholicism, and augment the ranks of the Symbolists and the\nDecadents, but he will only make the morbid more morbid, or morbid in\na different mood. The hard-working and enlightened Englishman does not\napply himself savagely to his business for business\u2019 sake. Nor does he\nencourage scientific progress for the sake of science.\n\nWhen he considers himself, and is considered by others, an eminently\npractical man, it is because he knows what he aims at, and uses,\nstudies, and encourages the most effective and promptest means to\nattain his ends. But the secret and the essence of this English\npracticality lies in the fact that his aims, so clear and so precise,\nare determined by his imagination, his emotions, and his instincts.\nUnlike the German who despairs of realizing his ideal, the Englishman\nhas it in his imagination as clearly before him as the architect has\nthe plans, elevations, and sections of the palace he is going to build.\nHe does not begin to build until he is convinced that every detail is\ncorrect. Nothing discourages him more than the spoiling and blurring of\nhis ideals; he stops his work, as does the builder when his drawings\nare lost, or found impracticable.\n\nIt is vain for Nordau to try to persuade the average Englishman, be\nhe educated or not, that the enjoyments which enchant him in his\nyouth shall not cast their roseate hue over the rest of his days.\nPoetry, music, the drama, are part and parcel of the pleasures the\nEnglish people look forward to when business has supplied them with\nthe means of enjoying them in the expensive form in which, with us,\nunfortunately, they are alone obtainable in perfection.\n\nIt is not only such enjoyments as educated people of all ages\nappreciate which for an Englishman retain a life-long charm. Even\nhis boyish tastes give zest to his life, so long as he retains his\nfaculties. At ten years of age he reads, raves, and dreams about horses\nand dogs; at seventy he rides to hounds, and at a still more advanced\nage he partakes in all the excitements of the racecourse. As a boy he\nreads about travels and adventures; at middle age, or even later, we\nfind him travelling all over the world in quest of big and small game.\nCricket, football, boating, and athletics in general represent the life\nof English boys, and far into old age they can seldom refrain from\nglancing at the sporting columns of their paper, which to a foreigner\nappear as interesting as the dullest of dull market reports; while\nathletic sports are witnessed by ever-growing crowds of people of all\nages, who watch the proceedings with a zest as intense as that of the\nSpaniard watching a bullfight.\n\nAnd to people who thus enjoy their lives, Nordau would say: \u201cYou are\ndegenerates, because you enjoy childish things. Put them behind you,\nand rise to my level. Take a seat at the table of science, where we\nwill show you by dissection, and by vivisection, the minutest details\nof the entrails of those creatures which, in the fulness of their life,\nin the beauty of their form, afford you a childish delight.\u201d\n\nIf such be the road to regeneration, only the weak-minded among\nthe English people will enter upon it. Thousands might momentarily\nexperience a depression\u2014a gloom similar to that produced by the\nfulminating and damnation-dealing preacher one meets with in country\ndistricts. The dismal appearance of the orator, his description of\nhell, of an accursed world, of the narrow way to salvation, as well\nas the scared faces in the dark and dank little church, may evoke\na gruesome mood while the sermon lasts. But on coming out into the\nsummer air, into the midst of the revivifying sunshine, of the rustling\ntrees, radiant flowers, singing birds, dancing butterflies, and softly\nhumming bees, the healthy-minded of the congregation experience a sense\nof relief and joy; for the uncharitable condemnation of the ascetic\npreacher is powerfully contradicted by the direct and unmistakable\nlanguage in which nature appeals to man\u2019s emotions.\n\nThe depressing effect of Nordau\u2019s book is enhanced by his ostentatious\ndisplay of knowledge, and by the absolute faith he himself has in\nit. He follows the methods of wily political speakers. These have a\nway of piling proofs upon proofs in order to demonstrate the truth\nof such points as are almost self-evident; and when they have thus\nestablished among their audience a confidence in their logic, they\nslur over the weak points, take for granted that everything is proved,\nand draw a plausible conclusion devoid of any direct connection with\nthe arguments. A postmaster-general, for example, does not wish to be\nbothered with the reduction of postage, and, in order to resist such\na proposal, he will deliver a lengthy harangue to show that the work\nof the post-office is useful to the public, that it cannot be well\nadministered without sufficient revenue, the necessity of keeping a\ncomplete staff, the impossibility of reducing wages and salaries, and\nmany other points which are perfectly clear without demonstration.\nHe will then suddenly conclude that the post-office works at present\nwith very small means, and that, if those means are further reduced,\ndisorganization and disorder may ensue. To be able to draw this\nconclusion, he has to take for granted that the reduced postage would\nmean reduced income to the post-office, while in reality it may mean\nthe very contrary.\n\nIn the same way Nordau gives us pages upon pages in order to show us\nsuch facts as psychological science has established, and then boldly\nelicits supposed facts which science never has and may never be able\nto prove. We have already given plenty of instances of this, and they\nneed not be referred to again. His careful minuteness in psychological\nmatters often induces the unwary reader to accept his unproved\nstatements purporting to represent facts drawn from other branches\nof knowledge. Thus, for example, he speaks of matters pertaining to\nsociology, economy, administration, and politics, as if he were a\nuniversally acknowledged authority on these subjects. It will suffice,\nhowever, to read his plan for arresting the spread of degeneration to\nunderstand at once on what feeble foundations his apparent omniscience\nrests. His idea of an ideal social order is an impossible amalgamation\nof socialistic as well as communistic fallacies. While he retains\nthe absurd postulate of the Socialists, that a perfect Government\ncould be established, distributing all the wealth of the nation among\nindividuals, he indulges heedlessly in the communistic delusion that\nthose who accumulate under the present system would continue to\naccumulate wealth at the same rate when the Government confiscates all\nfortunes left by deceased individuals. He does not see that people\nunder such a system would take very good care to dispose of their\nproperty before they die, a course which even the German police could\nnot prevent.\n\nHe does not insist on these errors, but they come out distinctly\nas indispensable links in the association of ideas, underlying his\nviews regarding the anti-semitist movement, the dangers of individual\nliberty, the bestial propensities of the masses, and the necessity\nof a Government composed of strong-minded scientific men. It is\nonly too easy to see that in all his suggestions of working out the\nterrestrial paradise of humanity,\u2014which one day, according to him,\nwill be the outcome of science,\u2014he is guided entirely by prejudice\nand feeling. In summing up what he has said on this subject, his\nideal social order presents itself to our minds as unfree, completely\nsubjected but well-cared-for masses benevolently governed by senates of\nstrong-minded, scientifically educated men\u2014the Jews.\n\nThe gloom and unrest called forth by Nordau\u2019s work in nervous minds no\ndoubt gain in strength from the apparently powerful personality behind\nit. But it suffices, as we have shown, to divest this imposing giant\nof his assumed power in order to escape from his influence. Nordau,\nhad he not done so before, reveals himself unmistakably in the very\nlast sentence of his book as one largely beset by human frailties\nwhen, in self-glorification, he quotes the words of him whose work he\nso strenuously attempts to undermine and oppose. In order to assure\nhis readers that his object, as a scientist, is to benefit humanity,\nto lead it farther on the road on which religion, so much contemned\nby him, has already taken it some distance, he quotes Christ\u2019s words:\n\u201cThink not that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets; I have\nnot come to destroy, but to fulfil.\u201d\n\nWe here refrain from the temptation to write half a dozen pages in\norder to show, in Nordau\u2019s own manner, how, by quoting from the\nScriptures, by appealing to faith and emotion, by comparing himself\nto Christ, he is symbolic with Paul Verlaine, he is mystical with the\nneo-Catholics, he is emotional with Rossetti, he is an egomaniac with\nthe Diabolists, and a megalomaniac with Wagner. But we refrain, and\nonly say that he is human.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\n_REGENERATION_\n\n\nIf the manifold discussions which have raged around the question of\nhuman progress have failed to establish a consensus of opinion, it\nis largely due to the absence of any exact definition of the term\nprogress. There can be no doubt about our advance in science. The trite\nreferences to the use we make of steam, of which the ancient sages knew\nso little as to call it smoke, establishes this beyond the possibility\nof denial. But, on the other hand, our advance in literature and art\nhas been crab-like; for it has been accomplished with our face turned\ntowards antiquity. To set up ideals out of the actualities of the past\ninvolves the recognition that we, as a race, stand lower than we have\ndone before, or at least at one time we have slided backwards and not\nyet retrieved the lost ground.\n\nThe progress of humanity, with all its deviations and backslidings,\nmay appear as one decided march onwards, if we look upon our ideals,\nplucked from the past, as so many pegs thrown out into the distant\nfuture demarcating the ground to be occupied by the road of\ncivilization. The Greeks showed us, as in a flash, and within a limited\nspace, ideals of poetry and art, and since the time of the Renaissance\nwe have been striving to attain them. Christ has been the moral ideal\nheld up to us for well-nigh nineteen hundred years; but this we are so\nfar from having realized, as to be filled with doubt whether, in our\nawkward groping, with our faces turned towards Calvary, we move in the\nright direction.\n\nThere are many circumstances which render it difficult to decide\nwhether we have progressed or not. How are we to determine which\nrepresents the greater advance, the high degree of \u00e6sthetic\ncivilization in a small group of the human family, and all the\nrest plunged in barbarian darkness; or a lower degree of \u00e6sthetic\ncivilization uniformly spread among all the peoples of the world? We\nhave, thus, to consider not only the degrees of progress, but the\nnature\u2014whether \u00e6sthetic or moral\u2014and its extension, before we can\ndecide whether we have progressed or not. But this is not all. We must\nagree, or at least have clearly determined in our minds, towards what\ngoal the progression is supposed to move. If it be to bring the whole\nof humanity up to an ideal beauty, perfect health, and a maximum of\nstrength and agility, our civilization in our present stage certainly\ntends in the other direction. If, on the other hand, the goal be the\nconquest of Nature\u2019s forces, we are certainly moving rapidly towards it.\n\nIn face, then, of the complexity of the question, whether humanity is\nprogressing or not, the best method of replying to it rationally is\nto take one feature of human development only, but one in which the\nothers are included, or on which they depend. To select for such a\ntest-feature the psychological conditions of civilized humanity, at\na certain period as manifested in literature and art, might at the\nfirst glance appear as the most rational course, because with strong\nand sound minds, with well-balanced psychological faculties, a nation\nis most likely to shape its destiny in such a fashion as to secure\nexcellency in all the domains of its existence.\n\nBut there are strong objections to this method of gauging human\nprogress. The fashionable writers and artists may not represent the\nmass of their contemporaries, but may be the exponents of a temporary\nmood in a small uninfluential clique. Features of literature and\nart may, as we have already pointed out, convey the impression of\nretrogression simply because they reflect the unrest and confusion\nwhich prevail in the majority of minds at periods when new ideas and\nnew views, healthy in themselves, trample out the old ones. Art and\nliterature do not always reflect the ethics of a nation at a given\nperiod. The nation may be intellectually strong and morally sound, but\npolitical events, economic troubles, may momentarily goad it into\nabnormal moods and drive it, by sheer necessity, into a course which,\nunder normal circumstances, it would shun. A despot with \u00e6sthetic\nleanings, and his nobility, might be instrumental in causing art and\nliterature to blossom forth most vigorously, while the people at large\nmight be sunk in the deepest depths of demoralization and misery in\norder to furnish the means for the maintenance of a brilliant court.\nHistory and actualities afford ample confirmation of the fact that\nart and literature may flourish while the people degenerate. When\nthe culture of Greece was at its zenith, a large proportion of the\npeople\u2014the slaves\u2014had fallen so low as actually to afford object\nlessons to the young citizens, in order to deter them from the\nhorrors of vice and degradation. During the Renaissance in Italy the\ncourts were corrupt, and the Church had sunk to its deepest stage of\ndemoralization. While the \u201cRoi Soleil\u201d was developing literature and\nart in the hothouse of his royal patronage, the immorality of the\nnobles and the degradation of the people were unprecedented.\n\nNor are there wanting examples of how a nation may be in a vigorous\nstate of progression without developing any remarkable features in art\nand literature. Switzerland was for a long time the leading nation\nin Europe in the matter of government, legislation, administration,\ncivic virtues, and education, but has never distinguished itself\n\u00e6sthetically. During the period in which America was most progressive,\nits people were too busy with practical affairs to give much attention\nto the arts. If, therefore, we were to judge the progress of a nation\nby its arts and literature, we might feel disposed to conclude that\nthese two blossoms of civilization sprout forth in the same ratio as\nthe people degenerate. But this would be absurd, for it would be to\ngive the palm of civilization to the Esquimaux, or to the pigmies in\nthe dark forests of Africa. The idea, therefore, of judging whether a\nnation, or a race, is rising or degenerating by the state of its arts,\nmust be rejected as utterly misleading.\n\nThe political and social institutions of a nation are surely the\nfeatures that best lend themselves to the test of the stage it has\nattained in progressive development, or degeneration. If laws and\ninstitutions are such as to give every inhabitant the best chances\nof attaining to a high degree of civilization, of morality, and of\nhappiness, and such laws and institutions emanate from the people\nthemselves, and are not imposed by another nation and not by the freak\nof a despot, that nation is in a progressive state. It is difficult\nto imagine a country with good laws and good institutions without\ncorresponding healthy conditions in all the other features of its\nexistence. History offers no example of a community, or of a people,\nthat has given itself laws and institutions equally beneficial to all\nthe individuals, and yet exhibiting signs of decay in any domain of\nits culture. It is true that in a free, healthy, progressive State,\nespecially a thoroughly democratic one, literature and art may not\nattain that hectic florescence so often co-existent with bad laws and\nbad institutions. But it has never been found that art and literature\nin such healthy nations are in a degenerating state.\n\nIt is true that different minds hold different opinions as to the\nattributes of good laws and institutions. A man who believes that human\nbeings are essentially wicked and brutal would call a government good\nonly when it possessed power enough to keep the people in subjection;\nwhile he who has discovered that the good qualities in human beings\nspring from a natural instinct, and the bad ones from unfavourable\nconditions and corrupt surroundings, would only call that form of\ngovernment good which afforded to each individual the greatest possible\nliberty consistent with the same degree of liberty in others. But there\ncan be no hesitation as to what constitutes good government and good\ninstitutions, if we appeal to the only authority capable of judging\nwith full knowledge of the case, namely, the individuals themselves.\n\nWe often meet with people who look with distrust upon institutions\nand systems of government based on liberty, but this does not affect\nour assertion that the great mass of individuals would personally,\nand for themselves, claim as much liberty as they could obtain. Those\nwho advocate authoritative administration and the subjection of the\npeople to a class, or an elected body, behold in such constitutions the\nmeans not of reducing their own liberty, but of extending it beyond\nlegitimate boundaries, and at the expense of the liberty of others.\n\nIt is hardly possible to imagine a nation that has given itself, and\nis living under, a system of personal liberty, and is at the same\ntime degenerate. A degenerate man fears liberty, he prefers to lean\non others; he feels not ashamed to live on charity, and would abuse\nhis liberty in order to satisfy his base instincts. A sound-minded\nand morally healthy man needs no compulsion to respect the right and\nliberties of others. He trusts and respects others, because he trusts\nand respects himself. He would assist no man in his attempts and\nintrigues to injure others. He would, therefore, uphold his own, as\nwell as the liberty of others.\n\nSuch bad results as Nordau fears from institutions based on liberty\ncan only arise out of oppression. We have shown how the anti-semitic\nmovement, which he erroneously regards as an outcome of too much\nliberty, is the result of oppression exercised by the Jewish\ncapitalists and employers in virtue of bad legislation, and no one\nwill deny that the anarchistic tendencies spring from the same cause.\nFrom these reasons we may fairly conclude that, if we wish to form an\nopinion of the intellectual soundness and moral strength of a nation,\nwe cannot do better than examine to what an extent it has attained to\ngood institutions based on personal liberty.\n\nIf civilized mankind is actually degenerating, we must find a tendency\namong the people in the countries under examination to give themselves,\nor to accept under compulsion, laws and institutions which rob them of\ntheir personal liberty.\n\nIn gauging the present epoch by this standard, we might first be\ninclined to side with Nordau. Those great nations which may fairly\nbe looked upon as the leaders of civilization present spectacles of\npolitical corruption and retrogression, which might well suggest\nthe idea that, instead of developing into a race intellectually and\nmorally strong enough to live free, they show a marked willingness to\nplace themselves under control of some kind\u2014to abandon their divine\nattributes and to assume those of domesticated animals. But a correct\nopinion about so important a question cannot be formed on a superficial\nglance. In no branch of knowledge are appearances so deceptive as\nin sociology. Apparently the same effects are often produced by two\nopposite causes, and under slightly different circumstances the same\ncause may produce two opposite effects. Thus, a man may vote for a\nmeasure because he is corrupt and selfish, and with the object of\nbenefiting himself at the expense of his fellow-men; while another\nman may vote for the same measure because he does not happen to be\nin possession of certain special knowledge which would enable him to\nunderstand the nugatory character of his action.\n\nThere are nations in Europe at this moment presenting such a mass\nof anomalies as to render it extremely difficult to decide whether\nthey are bent on improving their laws and institutions, or on making\nthem worse. Much, for example, that has happened in Germany has been\npronounced as a decided forward movement. The German army has displayed\nphysical and mental qualities which bear witness to healthy development\nrather than degeneration. The unification of the German States into\none Empire had for some time before the last war been the goal towards\nwhich the nation aspired. When it was reached, patriotic Germans\nexpected it to be made the starting-point of a new departure for\nfurther progress. But the very accomplishment of national unification\ninvolved features which clearly pointed to retrogression. The medi\u00e6val\nprinciple of conquest was revised. The future peace and good-will\namong the nations was destroyed by the annexation of the two provinces\nconquered from France. Standing armies for Germany became more than\never necessary, and the nation was called upon to make enormous\nsacrifices in order to ward off the consequences of retrogression in\nforeign politics. The heaviest burdens were laid upon the working\nclass, and their struggle for existence became desperate. They have\nshown many signs of discontent, and these have led to the consolidation\nof repressive measures. Thus Germany now presents the spectacle of a\ncurious amalgam of medi\u00e6val and modern features.\n\nAt the head of this great empire we find a young Emperor who, though\nnot a despot in the widest sense of the word, possesses, as an\nindispensable feature of the system, sufficient power to plunge not\nonly the whole of Germany, but all Europe, into unspeakable misery.\nThe individuals of the nation sink into insignificance before him.\nThey plainly feel that their destiny is in his hands as much as that\nof their ancestors was in the hands of their medi\u00e6val emperors. And\nyet the people are highly civilized, well educated, and show, in their\ndifferent walks of life, intelligence, strength of character, moral\nworth.\n\nHere, then, is a people which, judged collectively by our standard,\nwould stand at a low point of development, because their laws and\ninstitutions are not based on personal liberty. If we consider\nthe direction in which they are moving, the verdict becomes as\nunfavourable. The country is torn by two divergent tendencies, neither\nof them aiming onwards. The one represented by the Emperor, the\nofficial bodies, the plutocrats, and men who think as Nordau, who wish\nto keep a keener watch on the destitute classes; the other represented\nby the Socialists, who clamour for the destruction of the present\nsystem, not for the purpose of securing personal liberty, but of\nwresting what little is left of it from the people, and of establishing\ncomplete State tyranny.\n\nIf the standard we are applying be trustworthy, neither of the two\ncurrents of development noticeable in Germany run in the direction\nof a high degree of civilization. At the present moment it seems\ndifficult to discover whence, within Germany, could come the impulse\nfor such general mental and moral progress as would be manifested by\ngood and free institutions. If the present conditions could prevail\nindefinitely, and gradually improve so as to safeguard, or at least not\nimpede, the development of the individuals, Germany might look forward\nto the future with equanimity.\n\nBut, unfortunately, actualities in that country confirm only too\nwell the trustworthiness of our standard. The result of the present\nsystem cannot fail to exercise degenerating effects on the people,\nbut whether these effects will influence the present generation\nonly, or by heredity be perpetuated in the nervous systems and the\nbrains of the race, is a question for psychologists to settle. The\nstupendous standing army, the heavy taxation, and a host of bad\nlaws have undermined, and are still undermining, the welfare of the\npeople. The immediate results are, among the working classes: extreme\npenury, hopeless lives, low morals, intense hatred of the wealthy\nclass, a growing sympathy with the destructive programme of the\nadvanced Anarchists, decay of religious belief without any growth of\nthe religion of humanity of science. Among the commercial class, the\nresults are: intense competition, small profits, nervous application\nto business, a thirst for gold and recklessness with regard to the\nmeans of satisfying it. Among the bureaucratic classes the dread of\nreduced and retarded advancement has caused discipline and absolute\nsubmission to take the place of religion and philosophy. The landed\naristocracy, seeing their incomes threatened by the deplorable state of\nagriculture, plot and plan how to recoup themselves at the expense of\nthe people, and have even shown an inclination to resist the Emperor\nhimself when their interests require it. This state of affairs is more\nthan sufficient to account for such signs of degeneration as Nordau\nhas noticed in his own country. What wonder that artists and writers,\nmenaced by misery and actuated by the general thirst for gold, should\nconsult their market rather than their inspiration, and that they\nshould copy successful authors and artists in France and elsewhere,\nrather than take the trouble and the risk to do original work. A\ncomparison between German literature of to-day and that of decaying\nRome could not fail to impart important lessons.\n\nEverything in Germany points to a coming catastrophe. Even if we\nconsider only one of the directions from which the first alarm\nmay come\u2014that is, the Finance Department\u2014it seems impossible that\nthe system can last much longer. The heavy taxation unfortunately\nundermines its own basis, namely, the ability of the people to pay,\nand the much-strained credit of the State is likely to collapse at the\nvery moment it will be most needed. It is, therefore, not premature\nto consider what will happen in that country at about the end of this\ncentury, when the financial resources, the patience of the people, and\nthe confidence of the army may be exhausted.\n\nTwo alternatives are possible. The crisis which seems bound to come\nmay be a violent one, arising from below; or it may be a peaceful\none, taking its origin from above. In the one case, there will be\na momentary social chaos; for all the military and bureaucratic\ninstitutions, all systems, theories, prejudices, will be cast into the\nfurnace. At what time and under what conditions Germany will emerge\nfrom the crisis will depend on the number, and the strength of mind, of\nthose Germans who understand that good institutions based on liberty\nare the cardinal attributes of a sound-minded and morally strong nation.\n\nThe other case\u2014the crisis coming from above\u2014does not seem possible just\nnow, because the Emperor himself would have to take the initiative. It\nis not likely that he would give up his power, his military tastes and\npastimes, in order to render Germany a free and happy nation, living in\npeace with other free nations. For a sovereign to conceive such an idea\nwould be almost supernatural, and to carry it out successfully would\nrequire the highest degree of human intelligence, because it could not\nbe done except in harmony and in co-operation with the other European\nStates.\n\nFrom whatever direction the crisis comes, there is much in the\nGermans to warrant a final successful issue. We cannot believe, with\nNordau, that such signs as we see of degeneration spring from moral\nand intellectual weakness. In the external circumstances, we find\nsufficient cause for far more demoralization than actually exists;\nand the Germans, taken as individuals, show themselves to possess\nplenty of those mental and moral qualities which are the only possible\nfoundations of a healthy State. They bear witness to the fact that,\ndespite unfavourable outward circumstances, the race is not decaying;\nand that the present corruption and demoralization may be decay only of\none stage of human development, from which in obedience to some strong\nimpulse a new regenerating era may arise.\n\nIn order to elucidate the apparent state of degeneration which\ncharacterises civilization at the close of this most remarkable\ncentury, as well as its causes, we have instanced Germany\u2014the\ncountry where Nordau has studied and written, and where he seems\nto have received his most vivid impressions. The circumstances\nand tendencies of other countries, especially in those governed\nmore or less on despotic principles, are akin to those in Germany.\nEverywhere increasing penury, discontent among the destitute classes,\na rapidly growing power among the plutocrats, national indebtedness,\nfinancial corruption, the decay of all religious belief, and general\ndemoralization. But the similarity does not end here. In every country\nthere are numbers of people striving and hoping to bring about a better\nstate of things, even at the cost and sacrifice of some of the leading\nfeatures of our civilization. There is a mass of evidence, including\nthose peculiar features of modern society on which Nordau has dwelt so\nlargely, showing that a deep unrest has taken hold of humanity. The\nfeeling is not only that we are in a wrong position, but that we are\nmoving in a wrong direction. The general fear is not that degeneration\nhas set in, but that, moving on the road that we do, we cannot escape\nit.\n\nThe most striking characteristic of our time is that in no nation do\nwe find, on either side of the Atlantic, any distinct indication of\nthe road which can lead us past the Slough of Despond. The moral state\nof the civilized world is like a nation preparing for revolt against\na tyrant: gloomy, discontented, and excited men are encouraging one\nanother with secret signs and passwords, mustering and drilling in\nsecret places, to be ready for action, but without any trustworthy\nleaders, without any plans for the future, without even any tactics\nfor the first struggle. In some countries the cry is for leaders; but\nthe old faith that the situations will bring out the men seems to have\nbeen utterly falsified: for everywhere mediocrity, prejudice, and\ncorruption hold the helm. The cry in England and other countries is not\nfor leaders, but for more light. We want a higher philosophy, nobler\narts, a loftier literature, sounder principles of legislation, a purer\nreligion.\n\nNo nation holds a higher responsibility than the English. Its vast\npossessions all over the globe, its financial and commercial supremacy,\nits ethical influence over all the English-speaking countries, mark\nit out as the standard-bearer of civilization. Nothing great can\nhappen among us without re-echoing in the remotest corners of the\nearth, and any step onward taken by us will send a thrill throughout\nhumanity. Degenerate Englishmen may still wish to meekly follow other\nnations, but our mission is to be the practical, energetic, daring\npioneers heading the march of progress. By using its great power and\ninfluence, the British nation can render invaluable service to humanity\nin the present crisis. On England must therefore rest our hopes for\nthe practical solution of the grave questions on which progress and\nretrogression depend. From England alone can proceed that electrifying\nimpulse of which the bewildered nations stand in need, that they may\nmarshal the forces and focus the goal of progress.\n\nIn our political circles, in the ranks of literature, and throughout\nall the strata of society there are already unmistakable signs that the\nperiod of scepticism, selfishness, and rant will end with the century;\nthat scientific superstition and sickly Collectivist chimeras are\ndoomed; and that the nation is sternly entering upon the mission of\nleading humanity towards good laws and institutions based on liberty,\nand thus inaugurating a universal movement which by its glorious\nresults shall demonstrate that the alarming symptoms of degeneration,\nrevealed by the psychologists, are the first symptoms of regeneration.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n    About\u2019s (Edmond), _La Question Romaine_, 250\n\n    Anarchism, rapid spread of, 194;\n      causes of, 195-7\n\n    Andersen, Hans, 58\n\n    Andersen\u2019s _Ugly Duckling_, 74\n\n    Angelo, Michael, 224\n\n    Anstey, F., 141\n\n    Anti-semitism in Germany and elsewhere, 185 _ff._\n\n    Armies, English, French, and German, no degeneracy is proved by\n          recent events, 134\n\n    Art, 56 _ff._;\n      does not necessarily reflect the ethics of a nation, 292\n\n    Artists and symbolism, 73 _ff._\n\n    Arts, the, and science, future harmony of, 228, 229\n\n    Association of Men for the Suppression of Immorality, 246 _ff._\n\n    Atheism, effect of, upon morals, 85, 90 _ff._;\n      upon religion, 86 _ff._\n\n    Auricular confession, 162-4\n\n    Austria, causes of anti-semitism in, 187 _ff._\n\n    Avinain, French assassin, 164\n\n\n    Baudelaire, Charles, 231, 237\n\n    Beethoven, Ludwig, 106\n\n    Bismarck, Prince, 137\n\n    Bj\u00f6rnsen, Bj\u00f6rnstjerne, 170, 177\n\n    Borgia, Pope (Alexander VI), 265\n\n    Bornm\u00fcller, Franz, 116;\n      his estimate of Tolstoi, 116\n\n    Brahe, Tycho, 66\n\n    Bremer, Frederika, 142\n\n    Bront\u00e9\u2019s _Jane Eyre_, 146\n\n\n    Cavour, di, Count Camillo Benso, 137\n\n    Cervantes, Miguel, 152\n\n    Chitral, British expedition to, 134\n\n    Church and religion, the, distinction between, 77 _ff._\n\n    Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 219\n\n    Columbus, Christopher, 66\n\n    Communism, absurdity and impracticability of, 190\n\n    Confession of wrong-doing, the yearning for, 162-5\n\n    Consciousness of man, 204\n\n    Correggio, Allegri, 127\n\n    Cotta, Johann Friedrich, 277\n\n\n    Dante\u2019s _Divina Commedia_, 224\n\n    Darwinian theory of evolution, 159\n\n    Degeneration, the causes of, 255 _ff._\n\n    Dishonesty as a means of acquiring wealth, 267-9\n\n    Drummond, Henry, 8, 12\n\n    Drunkenness in England, 136, 137\n\n\n    Egoism, 260 _ff._\n\n    Egomania, 230\n\n    England, degeneracy in, 136, 137;\n      estimation of women in, 142, 217-9;\n      \u00e6sthetic revolt in, 237;\n      high moral responsibility of, 305, 306\n\n    English army, no degeneracy in, 134\n\n    Ethical Culture, Berlin Society for, 247, 248\n\n    Eroticism, 205 _ff._\n\n\n    Faraday, Michael, 54\n\n    France, marriage in, 90, 91;\n      \u00e6sthetic revolt in, 234 _ff._\n\n    Free Labour Association, the, 31\n\n    French army, no degeneracy in, 134\n\n    French hatred of Germany, 24, 25\n\n    French symbolists, the, 76 _ff._, 94\n\n\n    Galileo, 66\n\n    Gautier, Th\u00e9ophile, 231\n\n    Germans, submission of, to discipline, 15 _ff._;\n      their treatment of women, 18-19;\n      ideas concerning marriage, 19;\n      hatred of France, 24, 25\n\n    Germany, marriage in, 18, 19;\n      army system in, 138;\n      position of women in, 142 _ff._;\n      influence of, upon Norway, 173 _ff._;\n      causes of anti-semitism in, 187 _ff._;\n      the development of the empire, 298;\n      burdens upon the working people in, 298, 299;\n      despotic rule of the Emperor, 299;\n      bad effect of present system of government, 300-2;\n      the coming catastrophe, 301-3\n\n    Gladstone, William Ewart, 137\n\n    Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, 56, 152, 224\n\n    Goethe\u2019s _Werther\u2019s Leiden_, 104;\n      _Faust_, 157, 216\n\n    Gounod, Charles Fran\u00e7ois, 226\n\n\n    Hanseatic League, the, 173\n\n    Heller, Ferdinand, 222, 223\n\n    Heredity, 159, 160\n\n    Hugo\u2019s _Notre Dame de Paris_, 59\n\n    Human instincts, 270-2\n\n    Humanity, the religion of, 232\n\n    Hunt, Holman, 64, 68\n\n    Huxley, Professor Thomas Henry, 54\n\n    Huysman, Joris Karl, 236\n\n    Huysman\u2019s _A Rebours_, 273\n\n\n    Ibsen, Henrik, 132 _ff._, 140 _ff._, 177, 258;\n      influence of, upon women, 142\n\n    Ibsen\u2019s _Ghosts_, 154, 155, 158;\n      _Pillars of Society_, 155, 156;\n      _The Lady from the Sea_, 157;\n      _The Doll\u2019s House_, 74, 179-81\n\n    Immorality, Association of Men for the Suppression of, 146 _ff._\n\n    Immoral literature, impossibility of prohibiting the circulation of,\n          249-51\n\n    Instinct in human beings, 270-2\n\n    Italian army, no degeneracy in, 134\n\n\n    Jew, the free-thinking, characteristics of, 20, 21\n\n    Jews, the, Wagner\u2019s dislike of, 184;\n      hatred of, in Russia, 185;\n      in Germany and Austria, 187 _ff._;\n      inherent good qualities of, 191, 192\n\n    Jones, Burne, 68, 127, 130, 258\n\n\n    Kant, Immanuel, 3\n\n    Kidd, Benjamin, 8, 12\n\n    Kock, de, Charles Paul, 277\n\n\n    Legrain, 46, 47\n\n    Lemerre, Alphonse, 277\n\n    Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 105\n\n    Lessing\u2019s _Amelia Galotti_, 105\n\n    _Liberty_ (periodical), 32\n\n    Liebknecht, Herr, 16, 139\n\n    Lie, Jonas, 170, 177\n\n    Literature does not necessarily reflect the ethics of a nation, 292\n\n    Lombroso, Dr. Cesare, 21;\n      Nordau\u2019s dedication to, in _Degeneration_, 132\n\n    Love, the purity of, 213, 214\n\n    Loyola, Ignatius, 265\n\n    Lutheran Church and confession, the, 163\n\n\n    Marriage laws, how inaugurated, 150\n\n    Marriage relations in Germany, 18-19;\n      in France, 90, 91\n\n    Mallarm\u00e9, Stephane, 104 _ff._\n\n    Martineau, Dr. James, 54\n\n    Maudsley, Dr. Henry, 251\n\n    Millais, John E., 63, 64\n\n    Moli\u00e8re\u2019s _Malade Imaginaire_, 12\n\n    Moltke, Count Helmuth Karl Bernard, 7\n\n    Morel, Dr. B. A., 48\n\n    Morice, Charles, author of _La Litt\u00e9rature de tout \u00e0 l\u2019heure_, 106\n\n    Music, the influence of, 60, 61, 220 _ff._\n\n    Mysticism, 44 _ff._;\n      definition of, 47\n\n\n    Napoleon III, 138\n\n    Neo-Catholicism and the Church of Rome, 76\n\n    Nicholas II, Emperor of Russia, 138\n\n    Nietzsche, Friedrich, 201, 223, 243\n\n    Nietzsche\u2019s _Der Fall Wagner_, 223\n\n    Nihilists, Russian, 197\n\n    Nordau, Max, influence of his book _Degeneration_, 9;\n      importance of closely investigating his theories before accepting\n          them, 10;\n      intemperance of his methods, 11;\n      a typical German, 12;\n      his German bias, 17;\n      an enemy to France, 24;\n      his attitude toward art, 56 _ff._;\n      his animosity against the symbolists, 77 _ff._;\n      views upon the poetry of Paul Verlaine, 99 _ff._;\n      denunciation of Tolstoi, 108 _ff._;\n      estimate of Ibsen, 132-82;\n      attack upon Wagner, 183;\n      judgment of Zola, 274 _ff._\n\n    Norway, position of women in, 145 _ff._\n\n    Norwegians, national characteristics of, 171 _ff._\n\n\n    Ohnet\u2019s (George) novels, 28\n\n\n    Poets and symbolism, 73 _ff._\n\n    Pre-Raphaelitism, 55 _ff._\n\n\n    Raphael, Sanzio, 75, 127\n\n    Religion, influence of, upon civilization and progress, 49, 50;\n      and the Church, distinction between, 77 _ff._;\n      relation of, to science, 232 _ff._\n\n    Rollinat, Maurice, 231\n\n    Roman Church and neo-Catholicism, 76\n\n    Rossetti, Dante Gabriel, 127, 130, 135, 258\n\n    Rossetti\u2019s masterpiece, \u201cDante\u2019s Dream,\u201d 69, 70, 75\n\n    Rubinstein, Anton, 223\n\n    Ruskin, John, 58, 59\n\n    Russia, causes of anti-semitism in, 185-7\n\n    Russian, characteristics, 109;\n      government, 110;\n      serfs, 110, 111;\n      nihilists, 197\n\n\n    Scandinavia, position of women in, 145 _ff._\n\n    Science, the unsolved problems of, 22, 23;\n      the bankruptcy of, 73 _ff._;\n      and the arts, future harmony of, 228, 228 [sic];\n      relation of, to religion, 232 _ff._\n\n    Scientific atheism, 90 _ff._\n\n    Scientists, dogmatic attitude of, 65 _ff._;\n      influence of, upon religion, 86 _ff._\n\n    Schopenhauer, Arthur, 225, 226\n\n    Schumann, Robert, 222, 223\n\n    Self, the religion of, 230-40\n\n    Serfs, emancipation of, in Russia, 110, 111\n\n    Shakespeare, William, 56, 152\n\n    Society for Ethical Culture (Berlin), 247, 248\n\n    Sound mind, the test of, 133\n\n    Stage, the, purity of, 211\n\n    St\u00f6cker, Dr., anti-semitic agitator, reception of, in London, 193,\n          194, 265\n\n    Swinburne, Algernon C., 135\n\n    Symbolists, the French, 76 _ff._\n\n\n    Tintoretto, Giacomo, 127\n\n    Tjerulf, Norwegian composer, 177\n\n    Tolstoi, Count Leo, 108 _ff._\n\n    Tolstoi\u2019s _Kreutzer Sonata_, 115, 116;\n      _My Confession_, 117;\n      _My Faith_, 117;\n      _A Short Exposition of the Gospel_, 117, 126;\n      _About my Life_, 117;\n      _From the Diary of Nechljudow_, 125\n\n    Trades unions, 31\n\n\n    United States, the, treatment of women in, 142\n\n\n    Verlaine, Paul, 97 _ff._;\n      his poem addressed to Louis II of Bavaria, 101;\n      his \u201cChevaux du Bois\u201d and \u201cChanson d\u2019Automne,\u201d 103, 104\n\n    Victoria, Dowager Empress of Germany, 146\n\n    Voltaire, Arouet, 1, 9, 223, 254\n\n\n    Wagner, Richard, 28, 29, 151, 184 _ff._, 194, 198 _ff._\n\n    Wagner\u2019s _Art Work of the Future_, 209, 224\n\n    Wealth, dishonesty in the acquisition of, 267-9\n\n    William II, Emperor of Germany, 138, 299\n\n    Wolseley, Lord, 7\n\n    Women, position of, in the United States, England, and other\n          countries contrasted, 142 _ff._\n\n\n    Zola, \u00c9mile, 29, 130, 274 _ff._\n\n    Zola\u2019s _La Joie de Vivre_, 281\n\n\n\n\n  Transcriber's notes:\n\n    This book was published anonymously and is now attributed to\n    Alfred Egmont Hake.\n\n    One \"[sic]\" has been placed in the index, and a presumed missing comma\n    in the original is indicated with \"[,]\".\n\n    The book contains a single footnote, which is placed below the relevant\n    paragraph.","title":"Regeneration : $b A reply to Max Nordau","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":73084}