It has often been said that the passion of Englishmen for field sports

is really due to this love of Nature and of animals; that, like

sheepdogs (who, when they are not trained to guard sheep, will, by an

irresistible impulse, follow and harry them), they feel compelled to

have _something to do_ with hares and foxes and partridges and grouse,

and salmon; and they find that the only thing to be done is to course

and hunt and shoot and angle for them. Into this mystery I cannot dive.

The propensity which can make kind-hearted men (as many sportsmen

unquestionably are) not merely endure to kill, but actually take

pleasure in killing, innocent living things, and changing what is so

beautiful in life and joy into what is so ineffably sad and piteous,

wounded and dying, remains always to me utterly incomprehensible. But it

is simply a fact that lads trained from boyhood to take pleasure in such

“sports,” and having, I doubt not, an “hereditary set of the brain”

towards them, like so many greyhounds or pointers, never feel the

_ribrezzo_, or the remorse, of the bird or beast murderer, but, escaping

all reflection, triumph in their own skill, and at the same time enjoy

the woods and fields and river-sides where their quarry leads them. To

do them justice,—as against many efforts lately made to confound them

with torturers of a very different class,—they know little of the pain

they inflict, and they endeavor eagerly to make that pain as brief as

possible. Nevertheless, Sport is an inexplicable passion to the

non-sporting mind; and, moreover, one not very easy to contemplate with

philosophical forbearance, much less with admiration.

A larger source of wonder is it to reflect that this same unaccountable

passion for killing pheasants and pursuing foxes has so deep a root in

English life that its arrest and disappointment by such a change of the

Game laws as would lead to the abolition of game would practically

revolutionize all our manners. The attraction of the towns already

preponderates over that of the country; but till lately the grouse have

had the honor of proroguing annually the British Senate, and the

partridges, the pheasants, the woodcocks, and the foxes induce pretty

nearly every man who can afford to shoot or hunt them to bring his

family to the country during the season wherein they are to be pursued.

Of course women, left to themselves, would mostly choose to spend their

winters in town, and their summers from May till November in the

country. But Sport determines the Session of Parliament, and the Session

determines the season; and, as women love the London Season quite as

much as men like foxhunting, both parties are equally bound to the same

unfortunate division of time, and year after year passes, and the lilacs

and laburnums and hawthorns and limes in the old country homes waste

their loveliness and their sweetness unseen, while the little children

pine in Belgravian and South Kensington mansions when they ought to be

romping among their father’s hay-fields and galloping their ponies about

his park. All these arrangements, and, further, the vast establishments

of horses and hounds, the enormous expenditure on guns and game-keepers

and beaters and game-preserving,—the sole business of thousands of

workingmen, and the principal occupation and interest of half the

gentlemen in the country,—would be swept away by a stroke.

By some such change as this, or, more probably, by the pressure of a

hundred sources of change, it is probable, nay, it is certain, that the

old form of country life (which I have been describing, perhaps, rather

as it was a few years ago than it is now) will pass away and become a

thing of memory. When that time arrives, I cannot but think that England

and the world will lose a phase of human existence which, with all its

lights and shadows, has been, perhaps, the most beautiful and perfect

yet realized on earth. Certainly, it has offered to many a happiness,

pure, stable, dignified, and blameless, such as it will be hard to

parallel in any of the novel types of high pressure modern life.

And, on the other hand, there is nothing so mournful as the life of an

old ancestral home in the country! Everything reminds us of the lost,

the dead who once called these stately chambers their habitations, whose

voices once echoed through the halls, and for whose familiar tread we

seem yet to wait; whose entrance, as of yore, through one of the lofty

doors would scarcely surprise us; whom we almost expect, when we return

after long absence, to see rising from their accustomed seats with open

arms to embrace us, as in the days gone by. The trees they planted, the

walks and flower-beds they designed; the sword which the father brought

back from his early service; the tapestry the mother wrought through her

long years of declining health; the dog grown blind and old, the

companion of walks which shall never be taken again; the instrument

which once answered to a sweet touch forever still,—these things make us

feel Death and change as we never feel them amid the instability and

eager interests of town existence. All things remain as of old “since

the fathers fell asleep.” The leaves of the woods come afresh and then

fade; the rooks come cawing home; the church bells ring, and the old

clock strikes the hour. Only there is one chair pushed a little aside

from its wonted place, an old horse turned out to graze in peace for his

latter days; a bedroom upstairs into which no one goes, save in silent

hours, unwatched and furtively.

As time goes by, and one after another of those who made youth blessed

have dropped away, and we begin to count the years of those who remain,

and watch gray hairs thickening on heads we remember golden, and talk of

the hopes and ambitions of early days as things of the past,—things

which might have been, but now, we know, will never be on earth,—when

all this comes to pass, then the sense of the _tragedy_ of life becomes

too strong for us. The dear home, loved so tenderly, is for us little

better than the cenotaph of the lost and dead; the warning to ourselves

that over all our busy schemes and hopes the pall will soon come

down,—“the night cometh when no man can work.”

I believe it is this deep, sorrowful sense of all that is most sad and

most awful in our mortal lot, a sense which we escape amid the rushing

to and fro of London, but which settles down on our souls in such a home

as I have pictured, which makes the country unendurable to many, as the

shadows of the evening lengthen. To accept it, and look straight at the

grave towards which they are walking down the shortened vista of their

years, taxes men’s courage and faith beyond their strength, and they fly

back to the business and the pleasures wherein such solemn thoughts are

forgotten and drowned. And yet beneath our cowardice there is the

longing that our little race should round itself once again to the old

starting point; that where we spent our blessed childhood, and rested on

our mother’s breast, and lisped our earliest prayers, there also we

should lay down the burden of life, and repent its sins, and thank the

Giver for its joys, and fall asleep,—to awaken, we hope, in the eternal

Home.

-----

Footnote 1:

Several such critics, writing of the essay in this book on the

“Scientific Spirit of the Age” when it appeared in the _Contemporary

Review_ for July, condemned me for failing to do adequate justice to

Science, quite regardless of my reiterated assertions (see pp. 6, 7,

34) that I was writing exclusively on the adverse side, and left the

glorification of the modern Diana of the Ephesians to the mixed

multitude of her followers.

Footnote 2:

“Up to the age of thirty, or beyond it, poetry of many kinds, such as

the works of Milton, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Shelley, gave

me great delight, and even as a school-boy I took intense delight in

Shakespeare. I have also said that formerly pictures gave me

considerable, and music very great delight. But now, for many years, I

cannot endure to read a line of poetry. I have also almost lost my

taste for pictures or music.”—Darwin’s _Life_, vol. i. p. 101.

Footnote 3:

Darwin’s _Life_, vol. i. p. 101. Said of himself by Darwin.

Footnote 4:

That organ of the Scientific party, the _British Medical Journal_,

eulogizing this address, remarked that “Sir James is a master of

English, clothing all his thoughts in the most elegant language.” To

the mere literary mind the above definitions may be thought to leave

something to be desired on the score of “elegance.”

Footnote 5:

Speaking of this latter book, the Manchester _Guardian_ (March 17)

remarked that “the charges in ‘St Bernard’s’ were supported by details

of cases reported in medical journals and by statements made by

lecturers of distinction. The quotations are precise and easily

verified. The hospitals will do well to take some notice of a medical

man who avers that the healing of patients is subordinated to the

professional advantages of the staff and the students, that cures are

retarded for clinical study, that new drugs are tried upon hospital

patients, who are needlessly examined and made to undergo unnecessary

operations. They cannot afford to pass over the statement that the

dying are tortured by useless operations, and that the blunders of

students are covered by their teachers for the credit of the

hospital.” Every one of these offences against justice and humanity is

directly due to the inspiration of the Scientific Spirit.

Footnote 6:

It was long before Science acquired her natural voice. For more than a

thousand years she submitted servilely to Aristotle and his

interpreters. But the Science of the Dark Ages was only a branch of

learning of which a Picus of Mirandola or an Admirable Crichton could

master the whole, along with the classics and mathematics of the

period. The genuine Scientific Spirit was not yet born; and when it

woke at last in Galileo and Kepler, and down to our own day, the

Religious spirit was still paramount over the Scientific. It is only

in the present generation that we witness at once the evolution of the

true scientific spirit and of scientific arrogance.

Footnote 7:

While I am writing these pages, the _Globe_ informs us that there

reigns at present in Paris a mania for medical curiosities and

surgical operations. “It has become the right thing to get up early

and hurry off to witness some special piece of dexterity with the

scalpel. The novel yields its attraction to the slightly stronger

realism of the medical treatise, and the picture galleries have the

air of a pathological museum. It is suggested that the theatres, if

they want to hold their own, must represent critical operations in a

thoroughly realistic manner on the stage.”

Footnote 8:

In the very noteworthy paper by Mr. Myers in the _Nineteenth Century_

for May on the “Disenchantment of France,” there occurs this remark:

“In that country where the pure dicta of Science reign in the

intellectual classes with less interference from custom, sentiment, or

tradition, than even in Germany itself, we should find that Science,

at her present point, is a depressing disintegrating energy” (p. 663).

Elsewhere he says that France “makes M. Pasteur her national _hero_”!

Footnote 9:

I have heard a pitiful example of this kind of prejudice. An orphan

boy and his ugly mongrel dog were the objects of universal dislike and

ridicule in the house of his uncle, a Scotch farmer. The lad always

sat of an evening far back from the circle by the fireside, with his

crouching dog under his stool lest it should be kicked. One day the

little son of the house, of whom the farmer and his wife were dotingly

fond, went out with the boy and dog, and, a snow-storm coming on, they

were all lost on the hills. Next morning the dog returned to the farm,

making wild signs that the farmer should follow him, which he and his

wife did at once, in great anxiety. At last, the dog brought them to a

spot where they found the boy stiff and cold, but their child still

alive. The boy had taken off his own coat and wrapped it round the

child, whom he laid on his breast, and then, lying under him on the

snow, had died. Let us hope that at least the dog reaped some tardy

fruits of the farmer’s repentance.

Footnote 10:

I will cite an example from my own experience, which may help to make

parents realize the subtle peril of which I speak. Twenty-five years

ago I was engaged in an effort to help Mary Carpenter in the care of

the Red Lodge Reformatory for girl-thieves at Bristol. Our poor little

charges had all been convicted of larceny, or some kindred offence,

but they were not technically “fallen” girls: another establishment

received young women of this “unfortunate” class. Twice, however, it

happened, during my residence with Miss Carpenter, that girls who had

been on the streets were by mistake sent to us when convicted of

theft, and were of course received and placed with the others, all

being under the most careful surveillance both in the school-rooms,

playgrounds, and dormitory. Nevertheless, in each case, before the

“unfortunate” had been three days in the Lodge, by some inexplicable

contagion the whole school of fifty girls were demoralized so

completely that the aspect of the children and change in their

behavior gave warning to their experienced janitress to trace the

history of the new-comer more exactly, and, as the result proved, to

detect where the infection had come in.

Footnote 11:

In Dr. Ingleby’s just published Essays there is a very pertinent story

from Saint Augustine concerning this contagion of the emotion of

cruelty. A certain Alypius detested, on report, the spectacle of the

Gladiators, but was induced to enter the amphitheatre, protesting that

he would not look at the show: “So soon as he saw the blood,” says

Saint Augustine, “he therewith drank down savageness; nor turned away,

but fixed his eye, drinking in pleasure unawares, and was delighted

with that guilty fight, and intoxicated with the bloody pastime; nor

was he now the man he came, but one of the throng he came

into.”—_Saint Augustine’s Confessions_, Bk. vi., c. 8. Similar

perversions occur at all brutal exhibitions. A friend sends me the

following instance from his own knowledge. “A party of English people

went to the Bull Ring of San Sebastian. When the first horse was

ripped up and his entrails trailed on the ground, a young lady of the

party burst into tears and insisted on going away. Her brothers

compelled her to remain; and a number of horses were then mutilated

and killed before her eyes. Long before the end of the spectacle the

girl was as excited and delighted as any Spaniard in the assembly.”

Footnote 12:

Readers of that singular book, “St. Bernard’s” (Swan, Sonnenschein &

Co., 1887, new edition 1888), and its sequel, “Dying Scientifically,”

may possibly entertain doubts on this subject.

Footnote 13:

“C’est pourquoi, seul dans mon siècle, j’ai sû comprendre Jésus Christ

et St. François d’Assise.”—_M. Renan._

Footnote 14:

The heads of this party in England are the venerable Rabbi Nathan

Adler and his son and colleague, Rev. Herman Adler, who hold a kind of

Patriarchate over all English Orthodox Jews. The principal synagogue

of this party (to which the Rothschild family hereditarily belongs,

also the Cohens, Sir G. Jessel, etc.) is in Great Portland Street. The

_Eglise mère_ is in the City, and there are many other synagogues

belonging to it scattered over London and England. The Portuguese

branch of the Orthodox party (the most rigidly Orthodox of all), to

which Sir Moses Montefiore belonged, has its chief synagogue in Bevis

Marks. The late distinguished Rabbi Artom, brother of Cavour’s private

secretary, was minister of this synagogue.

Footnote 15:

The Reformed Jews, among whom Sir Julian Goldsmid and Mr. F. D.

Mocatta hold distinguished places, have only one synagogue in London,

that in Berkeley Street. The minister of this wealthy and important

congregation is the Rev. D. Marks. A special liturgy, differing

chiefly from the Orthodox by omissions of Talmudic passages, is in use

in this synagogue.

Footnote 16:

Professor Goldwin Smith, in the _Nineteenth Century_.

Footnote 17:

It will be noticed that nothing can be further apart than these ideas

of a Reformed Judaism from those put forward by George Eliot in

“Daniel Deronda.” Equally remote are they from the crude endeavor to

return to a supposed primitive Judaism through the “worship of the

letter” of the Old Testament, which was hailed some years ago with

premature satisfaction by a certain school of Protestant Christians.

See the interesting “History of the Karaite Jews,” by the Rev. W. H.

Rule, D.D., 1870.

Footnote 18:

As an example of this, I can mention the following fact. All the

Jewish journals in Germany (amounting to nine out of ten of all the

newspapers in the country) support a certain cruel practice. And why?

It has nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with finance,

nothing to do with any matter wherein Jews have a different interest

from other people. The key to this mystery is simply that seven or

eight of the most guilty persons are Jews. This “clandestine

manipulation of the press,” and tribe-union for purposes disconnected

with tribal interests, constitutes a _cabal_, and necessarily creates

antagonism and disgust. Nothing of this kind can be laid at the door

of English Jews, and it is much to be wished that they would

expostulate with their brethren on its imbittering effects abroad.

Footnote 19:

I cannot but think that too much has been made, particularly under the

influence of the modern mania for “heredity,” of the exceptional

character of the Jewish race. Of course, the Jews are a most

remarkable people, so vigorous physically as to be able to colonize

either India or Greenland, and after a thousand years of Ghetto

existence to remain (to the confusion of all sanitation-mongers) the

healthiest race in Europe. On the mental side, their multifarious

gifts and their indomitable sturdiness are no less admirable. But

their fidelity to their race and religion is not unmatched. Not to

speak of the miserable Gypsies, the Parsees offer a more singular

spectacle; for their members have always been a handful compared to

the Jews (not above 150,000 at the utmost), and during the ten ages of

their exile they have exhibited a spirit of concession towards the

customs of their neighbors which has left the actual dogmas of their

religion the sole bond of their national integrity. They worshipped

the One good God under the law of Zoroaster three, perhaps four,

millenniums ago, and they worship Him faithfully still, though a mere

remnant of a race, dwelling in the midst of idolaters, and with no

distinctive badgelike circumcision, no haughty disdain of “Gentile”

nations, no hope of a restoration to their own land. Their priests

have been illiterate and despised, not erudite and honored rabbis.

Their sacred books have twice become obsolete in language, and

incomprehensible both to clergy and laity. Their Prophet has faded

into an abstraction. But their faith in Ahura-Mazda, the “Wise

Creator,” the “Rich in Love,” remains as clear to-day among them as

when it first rose upon the Bactrian plains in the morning of the

world. The virtues of truth, chastity, industry, and beneficence

inculcated by the Zend-Avesta, and attributed by the Greek historians

to their ancestors of the age of Cyrus, are still noticeable among

them in marked contrast to their Hindu neighbors; as are likewise

their muscular strength and hardy frames. Even as regards their

commercial aptitudes, the Parsees offer a singular parallel to the

Jews. The _Times_ remarked some years ago that out of the 150,000

Parsees there were an incredible number of very wealthy men, and six

were actual millionaires. One of the last, Sir Jamsetjee Jeejebhoy,

gave away in his lifetime the sum of £700,000 sterling in charities to

men of every religion.

Footnote 20:

The congregations use Prayer-books with the vernacular in parallel

columns.

Footnote 21:

I refer especially to the magnificent services for the Day of

Atonement as used in the Reformed Synagogue. There are also many noble

prayers in the collection of Sabbath and other services for various

festivals. The whole liturgy is majestic, though somewhat deficient as

regards the expression of spiritual aspiration.

Footnote 22:

So rapidly moves the world that, since this Essay was first published,

a whole systematic work of charity of this specially Christian

character has been established by benevolent Jewish ladies in London.

I have before me the “Report of the Jewish Ladies’ Association for

Prevention and Rescue Work” for 1886–87, printed for private

circulation. The president of the association is Lady Rothschild; the

honorable secretaries, Mrs. Cyril Flower and Mrs. J. L. Jacobs.

Nothing can seem more wisely kind and merciful than the whole scheme

as here detailed. We are told that the poor Jewish girls reclaimed

from a life of vice (into which only of late years have many been

known to fall) “are taught not only to follow the observances of their

faith, but also to lead pure and useful lives; and no pains will be

spared to make them better women as well as capable earners of their

own livelihood.... The committee feel convinced they will not be

allowed to fail in their strenuous endeavor to bring back those who

are, as it were, sunk in moral death, to a _new life_.”

Footnote 23:

See this affectingly brought out in that charming book, “The Jews of

Barnow.”

Footnote 24:

A clever book, exhibiting great acquaintance with current phases of

opinion, appeared a few years ago, offering by its title some promise

of dealing with the case of the Christian Theists of whom I am

speaking. The author proposes to discuss “Natural Religion,” but he

shortly proceeds to describe a great many things which, in the common

language of mankind, are not _religious_ at all,—scientific ardor,

artistic taste, or mere recognition of the physical order of the

universe,—and to urge that these, or nothing, must constitute the

religion of the future. The Israelites who had gazed up in awe and

wonder at the rolling clouds on Sinai, from whence came the thunders

and voices, and the stern and holy Law, and were immediately

afterwards called on to worship a miserable little image of a calf,

and told, “These be Thy Gods, O Israel!” might, one would think, have

felt the same sense of bathos which we experience when we are solemnly

assured that these sciences and arts _are_ henceforth our “Religion.”

A drowning man proverbially catches at straws, and people who feel

themselves sinking in the ocean of Atheism seize on every spar which

comes under their hands, and cry, “We may float yet awhile by this.”

No one can blame them for trying to do so; but it is rather hard to

expect all the world to recognize as an ironclad the hencoop on which

they sit astride.

Among the “Natural Religions,” as he is pleased to call them, of which

he has brought us intelligence (some of which are not natural, and

none of which are properly Religions), the author of this book has

disdained to mention that ancient but ever new form of opinion which

in former days went by the name of Natural Religion. The words were

not happily selected, and belong indeed to an archaic theological

terminology. But they were understood by everybody to mean, _not_ the

recognition of the virtues of physical science, nor admiration of fine

scenery, nor enthusiasm for art, nor recognition of natural laws; for

all these things had names of their own. But it was understood to mean

the recognition and worship of a super-mundane, intelligent, and

righteous _Person_,—in other words, of GOD. It contemplated God

“mainly above Nature,” _not_, as the author of this book says must

henceforward be done, “mainly in Nature” (“Natural Religion,” p. 160).

For admirable pictures, however, of the modern Artist, who would

rather have painted a good picture than have done his duty, and of the

modern Man of Science who, “consumed by the passion of research,”

finds “right and wrong become meaningless words,” see p. 120.

Footnote 25:

A Chief of the Police Force has informed me that arrests of

desperadoes are always made, if practicable, at about four A.M.; that

hour being found by experience to be the one when animal courage is at

its lowest ebb and resistance to be least apprehended.

Footnote 26:

I have heard this peculiar but common form of feminine affliction

classified as the “Bad Husband Headache.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

The Scientific Spirit of the Age, and Other Pleas and Discussions · 第 11 / 12 段