With regard to the public morality of the Romans, and to their conduct

and influence as masters of the world, the language of historians seems

to us to leave something to be desired. Mommsen's tone, whenever

controverted questions connected with international morality and the law

of conquest arise, is affected by his Prussianism; it betokens the

transition of the German mind from the speculative and visionary to the

practical and even more than practical state; it is premonitory not only

of the wars with Austria and France, but of a coming age in which the

forces of natural selection are again to operate without the restraints

imposed by religion, and the heaviest fist is once more to make the law.

In the work of Ihne we see a certain recoil from Mommsen, and at the

same time an occasional inconsistency and a want of stability in the

principle of judgment. Our standard ought not to be positive but

relative. It was the age of force and conquest, not only with the Romans

but with all nations; _hospes_ was _hostis_. A perfectly

independent development of Greeks, Romans, Etruscans, Phoenicians, and

all the other nationalities, might perhaps have been the best thing for

humanity. But this was out of the question; in that stage of the world's

existence contact was war, and the end of war was conquest or

destruction, the first of which was at all events preferable to the

second. What empire then can we imagine which would have done less harm

or more good than the Roman? Greek intellect showed its superiority in

speculative politics as in all other departments of speculation, but as

a practical politician the Greek was not self-controlled or strong, and

he would never have bestowed on the provinces of his empire local self-

government and municipal life; besides, the race, though it included

wonderful varieties in itself, was, as a race, intensely tribal, and

treated persistently all other races as barbarians. It would have

deprived mankind of Roman law and politics, as well as of that vast

extension of the Roman aedileship which covered the world with public

works beneficent in themselves and equally so as examples; whereas the

Roman had the greatness of soul to do homage to Greek intellect, and,

notwithstanding an occasional Mummius, preserved all that was of the

highest value in Greek civilization, better perhaps than it would have

been preserved by the tyrants and condottieri of the Greek decadence. As

to a Semitic Empire, whether in the hands of Syrians or Carthaginians,

with their low Semitic craft, their Moloch-worships and their

crucifixions,--the very thought fills us with horror. It would have

been a world-wide tyranny of the strong box, into which all the products

of civilization would have gone. _Parcere subjectis_ was the rule

of Rome as well as _debellare superbos_; and while all conquest is

an evil, the Roman was the most clement and the least destructive of

conquerors. This is true of him on the whole, though he sometimes was

guilty of thoroughly primaeval cruelty. He was the great author of the

laws of war as well as of the laws of peace. That he not seldom, when

his own interest was concerned, put the mere letter of the social law in

place of justice, and that we are justly revolted on these occasions by

his hypocritical observance of forms, is very true: nevertheless, his

scrupulosity and the language of the national critics in these cases

prove the existence of at least a rudimentary conscience. No compunction

for breach of international law or justice we may be sure ever visited

the heart of Tiglath-Pileser. Cicero's letter of advice to his brother

on the government of a province may seem a tissue of truisms now, though

Warren Hastings and Sir Elijah Impey would hardly have found it so, but

it is a landmark in the history of civilization. That the Roman Republic

should die, and that a colossal and heterogeneous empire should fall

under the rule of a military despot, was perhaps a fatal necessity; but

the despotism long continued to be tempered, elevated, and rendered more

beneficent by the lingering spirit of the Republic; the liberalism of

Trajan and the Antonines was distinctly republican nor did Sultanism

finally establish itself before Diocletian. Perhaps we may number among

the proofs of the Roman's superiority the capacity shown so far as we

know first by him of being touched by the ruin of a rival. We may be

sure that no Assyrian conqueror even affected to weep over the fall of a

hostile city however magnificent and historic. On the whole it must be

allowed that physical influences have seldom done better for humanity

than they did in shaping the imperial character and destinies of Rome.

THE GREATNESS OF ENGLAND

[Footnote: The writer some time ago gave a lecture before the Royal

Institution on "The Influence of Geographical Circumstances on Political

Character," using Rome and England as illustrations. It may perhaps be

right to say that the present paper, which touches here and there on

matters of political opinion, is not identical with the latter portion

of that lecture.]

Two large islands lie close to that Continent which has hitherto been

selected by Nature as the chief seat of civilization. One island is much

larger than the other, and the larger island lies between the smaller

and the Continent. The larger island is so placed as to receive primaeval

immigration from three quarters--from France, from the coast of Northern

Germany and the Low Countries, and from Scandinavia, the transit being

rendered somewhat easier in the last case by the prevailing winds and by

the little islands which Scotland throws out, as resting-places and

guides for the primaeval navigator, into the Northern Sea. The smaller

island, on the other hand, can hardly receive immigration except through

the larger, though its southern ports look out, somewhat ominously to

the eye of history, towards Spain. The western and northern parts of the

larger island are mountainous, and it is divided into two very unequal

parts by the Cheviot Hills and the mosses of the Border. In the larger

island are extensive districts well suited for grain. The climate of

most of the smaller is too wet for grain and good only for pasture. The

larger island is full of minerals and coal, of which the smaller island

is almost destitute. These are the most salient features of the scene of

English history, and, with a temperate climate, the chief physical

determinants of English destiny.

What, politically speaking, are the special attributes of an island? In

the first place, it is likely to be settled by a bold and enterprising

race. Migration by land under the pressure of hunger or of a stronger

tribe, or from the mere habit of wandering, calls for no special effort

of courage or intelligence on the part of the nomad. Migration by sea

does: to go forth on a strange element at all, courage is required; but

we can hardly realize the amount of courage required to go voluntarily

out of sight of land. The first attempts at ship-building also imply

superior intelligence, or an effort by which the intelligence will be

raised. Of the two great races which make up the English nation, the

Celtic had only to pass a channel which you can see across, which

perhaps in the time of the earliest migration did not exist. But the

Teutons, who are the dominant race and have supplied the basis of the

English character and institutions, had to pass a wider sea. From

Scandinavia, especially, England received, under the form of

freebooters, who afterwards became conquerors and settlers, the very

core and sinews of her maritime population, the progenitors of the

Blakes and Nelsons. The Northman, like the Phoenician, had a country too

narrow for him, and timber for ship-building at hand. But the land of

the Phoenician was a lovely land, which bound him to itself; and

wherever he moved his heart still turned to the pleasant abodes of

Lebanon and the sunlit quays of Tyre. Thus he became a merchant, and the

father of all who have made the estranging sea a highway and a bond

between nations, more than atoning by the service thus rendered to

humanity, for his craft, his treachery, his cruelty, and his Moloch-

worship. The land of the Scandinavian was not a lovely land, though it

was a land suited to form strong arms, strong hearts, chaste natures,

and, with purity, strength of domestic affection. He was glad to

exchange it for a sunnier dwelling-place, and thus, instead of becoming

a merchant, he became the founder of Norman dynasties in Italy, France,

and England. We are tempted to linger over the story of these primaeval

mariners, for nothing equals it in romance. In our day Science has gone

before the most adventurous barque, limiting the possibilities of

discovery, disenchanting the enchanted Seas, and depriving us for ever

of Sinbad and Ulysses. But the Phoenician and the Northman put forth

into a really unknown world. The Northman, moreover, was so far as we

know the first ocean sailor. If the story of the circumnavigation of

Africa by the Phoenicians is true, it was an astonishing enterprise, and

almost dwarfs modern voyages of discovery. Still it would be a coasting

voyage, and the Phoenician seems generally to have hugged the land. But

the Northman put freely out into the wild Atlantic, and even crossed it

before Columbus, if we may believe a legend made specially dear to the

Americans by the craving of a new country for antiquities. It has been

truly said, that the feeling of the Greek, mariner as he was, towards

the sea, remained rather one of fear and aversion, intensified perhaps

by the treacherous character of the squally AEgean; but the Northman

evidently felt perfectly at home on the ocean, and rode joyously, like a

seabird, on the vast Atlantic waves.

Not only is a race which comes by sea likely to be peculiarly vigorous,

self-reliant, and inclined, when settled, to political liberty, but the

very process of maritime migration can scarcely fail to intensify the

spirit of freedom and independence. Timon or Genghis Khan, sweeping on

from land to land with the vast human herd under his sway, becomes more

despotic as the herd grows larger by accretion, and the area of its

conquests is increased. But a maritime migration is a number of little

joint stock enterprises implying limited leadership, common counsels,

and a good deal of equality among the adventurers. We see in fact that

the Saxon immigration resulted in the foundation of a number of small

communities which, though they were afterwards fused into seven or eight

petty kingdoms and ultimately into one large kingdom, must, while they

existed, have fostered habits of local independence and self-government.

Maritime migration would also facilitate the transition from the tribe

to the nation, because the ships could hardly be manned on purely tribal

principles; the early Saxon communities in England appear in fact to

have been semi-tribal, the local bond predominating over the tribal,

though a name with a tribal termination is retained. Room would scarcely

be found in the ships for a full proportion of women; the want would be

supplied by taking the women of the conquered country; and thus tribal

rules of exclusive intermarriage, and all barriers connected with them,

would be broken down.

Another obvious attribute of an island is freedom from invasion. The

success of the Saxon invaders may be ascribed to the absence of strong

resistance. The policy of Roman conquest, by disarming the natives, had

destroyed their military character, as the policy of British conquest

has done in India, where races which once fought hard against the

invader under their native princes, such as the people of Mysore, are

now wholly unwarlike. Anything like national unity, or power of co-

operation against a foreign enemy, had at the same time been extirpated

by a government which divided that it might command. The Northman in his

turn owed his success partly to the want of unity among the Saxon

principalities, partly and principally to the command of the sea which

the Saxon usually abandoned to him, and which enabled him to choose his

own point of attack, and to baffle the movements of the defenders. When

Alfred built a fleet, the case was changed.

William of Normandy would scarcely have succeeded, great as his armament

was, had it not been for the diversion effected in his favour by the

landing of the Scandinavian pretender in the North, and the failure of

provisions in Harold's Channel fleet, which compelled it to put into

port. Louis of France was called in as a deliverer by the barons who

were in arms against the tyranny of John; and it is not necessary to

discuss the Tory description of the coming of William of Orange as a

conquest of England by the Dutch. Bonaparte threatened invasion, but

unhappily was unable to invade: unhappily we say, because if he had

landed in England he would assuredly have there met his doom; the

Russian campaign would have been antedated with a more complete result,

and all the after-pages in the history of the Arch-Brigand would have

been torn from the book of fate. England is indebted for her political

liberties in great measure to the Teutonic character, but she is also in

no small measure indebted to this immunity from invasion which has

brought with it a comparative immunity from standing armies. In the

Middle Ages the question between absolutism and that baronial liberty

which was the germ and precursor of the popular liberty of after-times

turned in great measure upon the relative strength of the national

militia and of the bands of mercenaries kept in pay by overreaching

kings. The bands of mercenaries brought over by John proved too strong

for the patriot barons, and would have annulled the Great Charter, had

not national liberty found a timely and powerful, though sinister,

auxiliary in the ambition of the French. Prince Charles I. had no

standing army, the troops taken into pay for the wars with Spain and

France had been disbanded before the outbreak of the Revolution; and on

that occasion the nation was able to overthrow the tyranny without

looking abroad for assistance. But Charles II. had learned wisdom from

his father's fate; he kept up a small standing army; and the Whigs,

though at the crisis of the Exclusion Bill they laid their hands upon

their swords, never ventured to draw them, but allowed themselves to be

proscribed, their adherents to be ejected from the corporations, and

their leaders to be brought to the scaffold. Resistance was in the same

way rendered hopeless by the standing army of James II., and the

patriots were compelled to stretch their hands for aid to William of

Orange. Even so, it might have gone hard with them if James's soldiers,

and above all Churchill, had been true to their paymaster. Navies are

not political; they do not overthrow constitutions; and in the time of

Charles I. it appears that the leading seamen were Protestant, inclined

to the side of the Parliament. Perhaps Protestantism had been rendered

fashionable in the navy by the naval wars with Spain.

A third consequence of insular position, especially in early times, is

isolation. An extreme case of isolation is presented by Egypt, which is

in fact a great island in the desert. The extraordinary fertility of the

valley of the Nile produced an early development, which was afterwards

arrested by its isolation, the isolation being probably intensified by

the jealous exclusiveness of a powerful priesthood which discouraged

maritime pursuits. The isolation of England, though comparatively

slight, has still been an important factor in her history. She underwent

less than the Continental provinces the influence of Roman Conquest.

Scotland and Ireland escaped it altogether, for the tide of invasion,

having flowed to the foot of the Grampians, soon ebbed to the line

between the Solway and the Tyne. Britain has no monuments of Roman power

and civilization like those which have been left in Gaul and Spain, and

of the British Christianity of the Roman period hardly a trace,

monumental or historical, remains. By the Saxon conquest England was

entirely severed for a time from the European system. The missionary of

ecclesiastical Rome recovered what the legionary had lost. Of the main

elements of English character political and general, five were brought

together when Ethelbert and Augustine met on the coast of Kent. The king

represented Teutonism; the missionary represented Judaism, Christianity,

imperial and ecclesiastical Rome. We mention Judaism as a separate

element, because, among other things, the image of the Hebrew monarchy

has certainly entered largely into the political conceptions of

Englishmen, perhaps at least as largely as the image of Imperial Rome. A

sixth element, classical Republicanism, came in with the Reformation,

while the political and social influence of science is only just

beginning to be felt. Still, after the conversion of England by

Augustine, the Church, which was the main organ of civilization, and

almost identical with it in the early Middle Ages, remained national;

and to make it thoroughly Roman and Papal, in other words to assimilate

it completely to the Church of the Continent, was the object of

Hildebrand in promoting the enterprise of William. Roman and Papal the

English Church was made, yet not so thoroughly so as completely to

destroy its insular and Teutonic character. The Archbishop of Canterbury

was still _Papa alterius orbis_; and the struggle for national

independence of the Papacy commenced in England long before the struggle

for doctrinal reform. The Reformation broke up the confederated

Christendom of the Middle Ages, and England was then thrown back into an

isolation very marked, though tempered by her sympathy with the

Protestant party on the Continent. In later times the growth of European

interests, of commerce, of international law, of international

intercourse, of the community of intellect and science, has been

gradually building again, on a sounder foundation than that of the Latin

Church, the federation of Europe, or rather the federation of mankind.

The political sympathy of England with Continental nations, especially

with France, has been increasing of late in a very marked manner, the

French Revolution of 1830 told at once upon the fortunes of English

Reform, and the victory of the Republic over the reactionary attempt of

May was profoundly felt by both parties in England. Placed too close to

the Continent not to be essentially a part of the European system,

England has yet been a peculiar and semi-independent part of it. In

European progress she has often acted as a balancing and moderating

power. She has been the asylum of vanquished ideas and parties. In the

seventeenth century, when absolutism and the Catholic reaction prevailed

on the Continent, she was the chief refuge of Protestantism and

political liberty. When the French Revolution swept Europe, she threw

herself into the anti-revolutionary scale. The tricolor has gone nearly

round the world, at least nearly round Europe; but on the flag of

England still remains the religious symbol of the era before the

Revolution.

The insular arrogance of the English character is a commonplace joke. It

finds, perhaps, its strongest expression in the saying of Milton that

the manner of God is to reveal things first to His Englishmen. It has

made Englishmen odious even to those who, like the Spaniards, have

received liberation or protection from English hands. It stimulated the

desperate desire to see France rid of the "Goddams" which inspired Joan

of Arc. For an imperial people it is a very unlucky peculiarity, since

it precludes not only fusion but sympathy and almost intercourse with

the subject races. The kind heart of Lord Elgin, when he was Governor-

General of India, was shocked by the absolute want of sympathy or bond

of any kind, except love of conquest, between the Anglo-Indian and the

native, and the gulf apparently, instead of being filled up, now yawns

wider than ever.

It is needless to dwell on anything so obvious as the effect of an

insular position in giving birth to commerce and developing the

corresponding elements of political character. The British Islands are

singularly well placed for trade with both hemispheres; in them, more

than in any other point, may be placed the commercial centre of the

world. It may be said that the nation looked out unconsciously from its

cradle to an immense heritage beyond the Atlantic. France and Spain

looked the same way, and became competitors with England for ascendancy

in the New World, but England was more maritime, and the most maritime

was sure to prevail. Canada was conquered by the British fleet. To the

commerce and the maritime enterprise of former days, which were mainly

the results of geographical position, has been added within the last

century the vast development of manufactures produced by coal and steam,

the parents of manufactures, as well as the expansion of the iron trade

in close connection with manufactures. Nothing can be more marked than

the effect of industry on political character in the case of England.

From being the chief seat of reaction, the North has been converted by

manufactures into the chief seat of progress. The Wars of the Roses were

not a struggle of political principle; hardly even a dynastic struggle;

they had their origin partly in a patriotic antagonism to the foreign

queen and to her foreign councils; but they were in the main a vast

faction-fight between two sections of an armed and turbulent nobility

turned into buccaneers by the French wars, and, like their compeers all

over Europe, bereft, by the decay of Catholicism, of the religious

restraints with which their morality was bound up. Yet the Lancastrian

party, or rather the party of Margaret of Anjou and her favourites, was

the more reactionary, and it had the centre of its strength in the

North, whence Margaret drew the plundering and devastating host which

gained for her the second battle of St. Albans and paid the penalty of

its ravages in the merciless slaughter of Towton. The North had been

kept back in the race of progress by agricultural inferiority, by the

absence of commerce with the Continent, and by border wars with

Scotland. In the South was the seat of prosperous industry, wealth, and

comparative civilization, and the banners of the Southern cities were in

the armies of the House of York. The South accepted the Reformation,

while the North was the scene of the Pilgrimage of Grace. Coming down to

the Civil War in the time of Charles I., we find the Parliament strong

in the South and East, where are still the centres of commerce and

manufactures, even the iron trade, which has its smelting works in

Sussex. In the North the feudal tie between landlord and tenant, and the

sentiment of the past, preserve much of their force, and the great power

in those parts is the Marquis of Newcastle, at once great territorial

lord of the Middle Ages and elegant _grand seigneur_ of the

Renaissance, who brings into the field a famous regiment of his own

retainers. In certain towns, such as Bradford and Manchester, there are

germs of manufacturing industry, and these form the sinews of the

Parliamentarian party in the district which is headed by the Fairfaxes.

But in the Reform movement which extended through the first half of the

present century, the geographical position of parties was reversed; the

swarming cities of the North were then the great centres of Liberalism

and the motive power of Reform; while the South, having by this time

fallen into the hands of great landed proprietors, was Conservative. The

stimulating effect of populous centres on opinion is a very familiar

fact; even in the rural districts it is noticed by canvassers at

elections that men who work in gangs are generally more inclined to the

Liberal side than those who work separately.

Lectures and Essays(#6570) · 第 2 / 35 段