CHAPTER X

MODERN GERMAN CULTURE

It is important to distinguish between the meaning of the German term

"Kultur" and that commonly expressed in English by the word "culture."

The word "Kultur" in modern German is simply equivalent to our word

"civilization," whereas the word "culture" in English has a special

meaning, to wit, that of intellectual attainments. In this chapter we

are chiefly concerned with the latter sense of the word.

Germany had a rich popular literature during the Middle Ages from the

redaction of the _Nibelungenlied_ under Charles the Great onwards.

Prominent among this popular literature were the love-songs of the

Minnesingers, the epics drawn from mediæval traditionary versions of

the legend of Troy, of the career of _Alexander the Great_, and, to

come to more recent times, to legends of _Charles the Great and his

Court_, of _Arthur and the Holy Grail_, the _Nibelungenlied_ in its

present form, and _Gudrun_. The "beast-epic," as it was called, was

also a favourite theme, especially in the form of _Reynard the Fox_.

In another branch of literature we have collections of laws dating

from the thirteenth century and known respectively from the country of

their origin as the _Sachsenspiegel_ and the _Schwabenspiegel_. Again,

at a later date, followed the productions of the Meistersingers, and

especially of Hans Sachs, of Nürnberg. Then, again, we have the prose

literature of the mystics, Eckhart, Tauler, and their followers.

Towards the close of the mediæval period we find an immense number of

national ballads, of chap-books, not to mention the Passion Plays or

the polemical theological writings of the time leading up to the

Reformation. Luther's works, more especially his translation of the

Bible, powerfully helped to fix German as a literary language. The

Reformation period, as we have seen in an earlier chapter, was rich in

prose literature of every description--in fact, the output of serious

German writing continued unabated until well into the seventeenth

century. But the Thirty Years' War, which devastated Germany from end

to end, completely swept away the earlier literary culture of the

nation. In fact, the event in question forms a dividing line between

the earlier and the modern culture of Germany. In prose literature,

the latter half of the seventeenth century, Germany has only one work

to show, though that is indeed a remarkable one--namely,

Grimmelshausen's _Simplicissimus_, a romantic fiction under the guise

of an autobiography of wild and weird adventure for the most part

concerned with the Thirty Years' War.

The rebirth of German literature in its modern form began early in the

eighteenth century. Leibnitz wrote in Latin and French, and his

culture was mainly French. His follower, Christian Wolf, however,

first used the German language for philosophical writing. But in

poetry, Klopstock and Wieland, and, in serious prose, Lessing and

Herder, led the way to the great period of German literature. In this

period the name of Goethe holds the field, alike in prose and poetry.

Goethe was born in 1749, and hence it was the last quarter of the

century which saw him reach his zenith. Next to Goethe comes his

younger contemporary, Schiller. It is impossible here to go even

briefly into the achievements of the bearers of these great names.

They may be truly regarded in many important respects as the founders

of modern German culture. Around them sprang up a whole galaxy of

smaller men, and the close of the eighteenth century showed a

literary activity in Germany exceeding any that had gone before.

Turning to philosophy, it is enough to mention the immortal name of

Immanuel Kant as the founder of modern German philosophic thought and

the first of a line of eminent thinkers extending to wellnigh the

middle of the nineteenth century. The names of Fichte, Schelling,

Hegel, Schopenhauer and others will at once occur to the reader.

Contemporaneously with the great rise of modern German literature

there was a unique development in music, beginning with Sebastian Bach

and continuing through the great classical school, the leading names

in which are Glück, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schubert,

etc. The middle period of the nineteenth century showed a further

development in prose literature, producing some of the greatest

historians and critics the world has seen. At this time, too, Germany

began to take the lead in science. The names of Virchow, Helmholtz,

Häckel, out of a score of others, all of the first rank, are familiar

to every person of education in the present and past generation. The

same period has been signalized by the great post-classical

development in music, as illustrated by the works of Schumann, Brahms,

and, above all, by the towering fame of Richard Wagner.

From the last quarter of the eighteenth century onwards it may truly

be said of Germany that education is not only more generally diffused

than in any other country of Europe, but (as a recent writer has

expressed it) "is cultivated with an earnest and systematic devotion

not met with to an equal extent among other nations." The present

writer can well remember some years ago, when at the railway station

at Breisach (Baden) waiting one evening for the last train to take him

to Colmar, he seated himself at the table of the small station

restaurant at which three tradesmen, "the butcher, the baker, and the

candlestick-maker" of the place were drinking their beer. Broaching to

them the subject of the history of the town, he found the butcher

quite prepared to discuss with the baker and the candlestick-maker the

policy of Charles the Bold and Louis XI as regards the possession of

the district, as though it might have been a matter of last night's

debate in the House or of the latest horse-race. Where would you find

this popular culture in any other country?

Germany possesses 20 universities, 16 polytechnic educational

institutes, about 800 higher schools (gymnasia), and nearly 60,000

elementary schools. Every town of any importance throughout the German

States is liberally provided in the matter of libraries, museums, and

art collections, while its special institutions, music schools, etc.,

are famous throughout the world. The German theatre is well known for

its thoroughness. Every, even moderately sized, German town has its

theatre, which includes also opera, in which a high scale of all-round

artistic excellence is attained, hardly equalled in any other country.

In fact, it is not too much to say that for long Germany was foremost

in the vanguard of educational, intellectual, and artistic progress.

That the above is an over-coloured statement as regards the importance

of Germany for wellnigh a century and a half past in the history of

human culture, in the sense of intellectual progress in its widest

meaning, I venture to think that no one competent to judge will

allege. Is then, it may be asked, the railing of public opinion and

the Press of Great Britain and other countries outside Germany and

Austria, against the Germany of the present day, and the jeers at the

term "German culture" wholly unjustified and the result of national or

anti-German prejudice? That there has been much foolish vituperative

abuse of the whole German nation and of everything German

indiscriminately in the Press of this and some other countries is

undoubtedly true. But, however, our acknowledgment of this fact will

not justify us in refusing to recognize the truth which finds

expression in what very often looks like mere foolish vilification.

The truth in question will be apparent on a consideration of the

change that has come over the German people and German culture since

the war of 1870 and the foundation of the modern German Empire. The

material and economic side of this change has been already indicated

in a short summary in the quotation which closes the last chapter. But

these changes, or advances if you will, on the material side, have

been accompanied by a moral and material degeneration which has been

only very partially counteracted at present by a movement which,

though initiated before the period named, has only attained its great

development, and hence influenced the national character, since the

date in question.

It is a striking fact that in the last forty-four years--the period of

the new German Empire--there has been a dearth of originality in all

directions. In the earlier part of the period in question the

survivors from the pre-Imperial time continued their work in their

several departments, but no new men of the same rank as themselves

have arisen, either alongside of them or later to take their places.

The one or two that might be adduced as partial exceptions to what has

been above said only prove the rule. We have had, it is true, a

multitude of men, more or less clever _epigoni_, but little else.

Again, it is, I think, impossible to deny that a mechanical hardness

and brutality have come over the national character which entirely

belie its former traits. It is a matter of common observation that in

the last generation the German middle class has become noticeably

coarsened, vulgarized, and blatant.

Again, although I am very far from wishing to attribute the crimes and

horrors committed by the German army during the present war to the

whole German nation, or even to the _rank and file_ of those composing

the army, yet there is no doubt that some blame must be apportioned at

least to the latter. The contrast is striking between the conduct of

the German troops during the present war and that of 1870, when they

could declare that they were out "to fight French soldiers and not

French citizens." Such were the military ethics of bygone generations

of German soldiers. They certainly do not apply to the German army of

to-day. The popularity of such writers as Von Treitschke and

Bernhardi, respecting which so much has been written, is indeed

significant of a vast change in German moral conceptions. The

practical influence of Nietzsche, who--with his corybantic whirl of

criticism on all things in heaven above and on the earth beneath, a

criticism not always coherent with itself--can hardly be termed a

German Chauvinist in any intelligible sense, has, I think, been much

exaggerated. The importance of his theories, considered as an

ingredient in modern German Chauvinism, is not so considerable, I

should imagine, as is sometimes thought.

We come now to the movement already alluded to as a set-off and,

within certain boundaries at least, a counteractive of the degeneracy

exhibited in the German character since the foundation of the present

Imperial system. The rise and rapid growth of the Social Democratic

movement is perhaps the most striking fact in the recent history of

Germany. The same may be said, of course, of the growth of Socialism

everywhere during the same period. But in Germany it has for a

generation past, or even more, occupied an exceptional position, alike

as regards the rapidity of its increase, its direct influence on the

masses, and its party organization. Modern Socialism, as a party

doctrine, is, moreover, a product of the best period of

nineteenth-century German thought and literature. Its three great

theoretical protagonists, Marx, Engels, and their younger

contemporary, Lassalle, all issued from the great Hegelian movement of

the first half of the nineteenth century. Their propagandist

activity, literary and otherwise, was in the German language. The

analysis of the present capitalist system, forming the foundation of

the demand for the communization of the means of production,

distribution, and exchange, as resulting in a _human_ society as

opposed to a _class_ society, and ultimately in the extinction of

national barriers in a world-federation of socialized humanity--these

principles were first appreciated, as a world-ideal, by the

proletariat of Germany, and they have unquestionably raised that

proletariat to an intellectual rank as yet equalled by no other

working-class in the world.

It must be admitted, however, that with the colossal growth of the

Social Democratic party in Germany in numbers and the introduction

into it of elements from various quarters, a certain deterioration,

one may hope and believe only temporary, has become apparent in its

quality. This applies, at least, to certain sections of the party. A

sordid practicalism has made itself felt, due to a feverish desire to

play an important rôle in the detail of current politics. Personal

ambition and the mechanical working of the party system have also had

their evil influence in the movement in recent years. Nevertheless, we

have reason to believe that the core of the party is as sound and as

true to principle as ever it was, and that on the restoration of

international peace this will be seen to be the case. What interests

us, however, specially, at the moment of writing, is the lamentable,

yet undeniable, fact that German Social Democracy has, on this

occasion, disastrously failed to prevent the outbreak of war,

notwithstanding the vigour of its efforts to do so during the last

week of July; and still more that it has failed up to date to stem the

rising flood of militarism and jingoism in the German people. That

before many months are over the scales will fall from the eyes of the

masses of Germany I am convinced, and not less that a revolutionary

movement in Germany will be one of the signs that will herald the dawn

of a better day for Germany and for Europe. But meanwhile we must hold

our countenances in patience.

If we inquire the cause of the degeneracy we have been considering in

the German character since the war of 1870 and the creation of the new

empire--apart from those economic causes of change common to all

countries in modern civilization--the answer of those who have

followed the history of the period can hardly fail to be--Bismarck and

Prussia. We have already seen in the short historical sketch given in

the last chapter how the robber hand of Prussia, in violation of all

national treaty rights, had gradually succeeded in annexing wellnigh

all the neighbouring German territories. But, notwithstanding this,

the greater part of Germany still remained outside the Prussian

monarchy. The policy of Bismarck was first of all to cripple the rival

claimant for the hegemony of Central Europe, Austria. Her complete

subjugation being unfeasible, she had to be shut up rigorously to her

immediate dominions on the eastern side of Central Europe, in order to

leave the path clear for Bismarck, by war or subterfuge, to absorb,

under a system of nominally vassal States, the whole of the rest of

Germany into the system of the Prussian monarchy.

Now, as we know, from its very foundation the Hohenzollern-Prussian

monarchy has always been a more or less veiled despotism, based on

working through a military and bureaucratic oligarchy. The army has

been the dominant factor of the Prussian State from the beginning of

the eighteenth century onwards. Prussia has been from the beginning of

its monarchy the land of the drill-sergeant and the barracks. It is

this system which the Junker Bismarck has riveted on the whole German

people, with what results we now see. Badenese, Würtembergers,

Franconians, Hanoverians, the citizens of the former free cities no

less than the already absorbed Westphalians, Thuringians, Silesians,

Mecklenburgers, were speedily all reduced to being the slaves of the

Prussian military system and of the Prussian military caste. The naïve

German peoples, as already pointed out, accepted this Prussian

domination as the realization of their time-honoured patriotic ideal

of German unity.

The fact of their subservience was emphasized in every way. The law of

_lèse-majesté_ (_majestätsbeleidigung_), by which all criticism of the

despotic head of the State or his actions is made a heinous criminal

offence, to which severe penalties are attached, it is not too much to

say is a law which brands the ruler who accepts it as a coward and a

cur, and the Legislature which passes it as a house, not of

representative citizens, or even subjects for that matter, but of

representative _slaves_. It must not be forgotten that the law in

question strikes not only at public expressions of opinion in the

press or on the platform, but at the most private criticism made in

the presence of a friend in one's own room. The depths of undignified

and craven meanness to which a monarch is reduced by being thus

protected from criticism by the police-truncheon and the gaoler struck

me especially as illustrated by the following incident which happened

some years ago: Shortly after the accession of the present Kaiser, a

conjurer was giving his entertainment in a Swiss town. For one of the

tricks he was going to exhibit he had occasion to ask the audience to

send him up the names of a few public men on folded pieces of paper.

His reception of the names written down was accompanied by the

"patter" proper to his profession. On coming to the name of Kaiser

Wilhelm II he ventured the remark, "Ah! I'd rather it had been the

poor man just dead" (meaning the Emperor Frederick), "for I'm afraid

this one's not much good." Will it be believed that the whole

diplomatic machinery was set on foot to induce the Swiss Government to

prosecute the unfortunate entertainer, abortively of course, since it

could not have been legally done? Surely the head of a State who could

allow his Government to descend to such contemptible pettiness must be

devoid of all sense of common self-respect, not to say personal

dignity. And this is the fellow who claims to be hardly second in

importance to his "dear old God"! In this connection it is only fair

to recall the very different behaviour of King Edward VII when an

Irish paper published not a mere criticism but an unquestionably

libellous article reflecting on his private character. The police

seized the copies of the paper and were prepared to take steps to

prosecute, when the late King interfered and stopped even the

confiscation of the paper. The least monarchical of us must, I think,

admit that here we have a good illustration of the distinction between

a man sure of his reputation and a cur nervously alarmed for his.

This severe law of _lèse-majesté_ in Bismarck's Prusso-German Empire

is only an illustration of the way in which the German people have

been made to grovel before the Prussian jack-boot. The Prussification

of Germany in matters military and in matters bureaucratic has gone on

apace since 1870. Prussia, it is not too much to say, has hitherto

consisted in a nation of slaves and tyrants and nothing else. It is

the Prussian governing class which has everywhere and in all

departments "set the pace" since the empire was established. No man

known to hold opinions divergent from those agreeable to the interests

of the Prussian governing class can hope for employment, be it the

most humble, in any department of the public service. This is

particularly noticeable in its effects in the matter of education. The

inculcation of the brutal and blatant jingoism of Von Treitschke at

the universities by professors eager for approval in high places has

already been sufficiently animadverted upon in more than one work on

modern Germany. The defeat of Prusso-German militarism will be an

even greater gain to all that is best in Germany herself than it will

be to Europe as a whole.

_Delenda est Prussia_, understanding thereby not, of course, the

inhabitants of Prussian territory as such, but Prussia as a

State-system and as an independent Power in Europe, must be the

watchword in the present crisis of every well-wisher of Humanity,

Germany included. A united Germany, if that be insisted upon, by all

means let there be--a federation of all the German peoples with its

capital, for that matter, as of old, at Frankfurt-on-the-Main, but

with no dominant State and, if possible, excluding Prussia altogether,

but certainly as constituted at present. Who knows but that a united

States of Germany may then prove the first step towards a united

States of Europe?

But it is not alone to the political reconstruction of Germany or of

Europe that those who take an optimistic view of the issue of the

present European war look hopefully. The whole economic system of

modern capitalism will have received a shock from which the beginnings

of vast changes may date. Apart from this, however, the avowed aim of

the war, the destruction of Prussian militarism and, indirectly, the

weakening of military power throughout the world, should have

immediate and important consequences. The brutalities and crimes

committed in Belgium and the North of France at the instigation of the

military heads of this Prusso-German army do but indicate

exaggerations of the military spirit and attitude generally. Von

Hindenburg is not the first who has given utterance to the devilish

excuse for military crime and brutality that it is "more humane in the

end, since it shortens war." To refute this transparent fallacy is

scarcely necessary, since every historical student knows that military

excesses and inhumanity do not shorten but prolong war by raising

indignation and inflaming passions. The longest connected war known to

history--the Thirty Years' War--is generally acknowledged to have been

signalized by the greatest and most continuous inhumanity of any on

record. But whether military crime has the effect claimed for it or

not, we may fain hope that public opinion in Europe will insist upon

giving the "humane" commanders who "mercifully" endeavour to "shorten"

war by drastic methods of this sort a severe lesson. A few such

treated to the utmost penalties the ordinary criminal law prescribes

to the crimes of arson, murder, and robbery would teach them and their

like that war, if waged at all nowadays, must be waged decently and

not "shortened" by such devices as those in question.

If the present war with all its horrible carnage issues, even if only

in the beginning of those changes which some of us believe must

necessarily result from it--changes economical, political, and

moral--then indeed it will not have been waged in vain. With the great

intellectual powers of the Germanic people devoted, not to the

organization of military power and of national domination, but to

furthering the realization of a higher human society; with the

determination on the part of the best elements among every European

people to work together internationally with each other, and not least

with the new Germany, to this end, and the great European war of 1914

will be looked back upon by future generations as the greatest

world-historic example of the proverbial evil out of which good, and a

lasting and inestimable good, has come for Europe and the world.

UNWIN BROTHERS LIMITED THE GRESHAM PRESS WOKING AND LONDON.

* * * * *

+-----------------------------------------------------------+

| Typographical errors corrected in text: |

| |

| Page 47: distrtict replaced with district |

| Page 106: therin replaced with therein |

| |

+-----------------------------------------------------------+

* * * * *

German Culture Past and Present · 第 10 / 10 章