minister, who lacked, however, the courage to face his master's
prejudices and had little authority over many of his own subordinates.
De Nelidoff, at Constantinople, dared even to make himself the centre of
diplomatic intrigue directed against the policy of his chief. Still less
was de Giers able to control the strong Pan-Slavist influences which
ruled in the Church, the Home Office, and the Press. Morier gives
interesting portraits of Pobedonóstsev, the bigoted procurator of the
Holy Synod, of Tolstoy the reactionary Minister of the Interior, of
Katkoff the truculent editor of the _Moscow Gazette_. These were the
most notable of the men who flouted the authority, thwarted the work,
and undermined the position of the Tsar's nominal adviser, and often
they carried the day in determining the attitude of the Tsar himself.
Yet Morier was bound by his own honesty and by the traditions of
British diplomacy to do business with de Giers alone, to receive the
assurances of one who was being betrayed by his own ambassadors, to make
his protests to one who could not effectively remedy the grievances. His
difficulty was increased by de Giers's manner--'when getting on to
slippery ground he has a remarkable power of speaking only half
intelligibly and swallowing a large proportion of his words'. Morier was
often conscious that he was building on sand; but in quiet weather it
was possible to stem the flood for a while even with dikes of sand.
Perhaps a little later the tide of Balkan troubles might be setting in
another direction and the danger might be past. In Russia, where so much
was incalculable, it was wise to make the most of such help as presented
itself. Meanwhile the Russian Ambassador in London, Baron de Staäl,
co-operated as loyally with Lord Salisbury as Morier with de Giers; and
thanks to their diplomatic skill, rough places were smoothed away and
bases of agreement were found. In the course of 1887, the smouldering
fires of Anglo-Russian antagonism died down, and Russia adopted a
waiting attitude in Bulgaria.
But this happy result was not attained till after Asiatic problems had
given rise to serious alarms. The worst moment was in July 1886, when
the Tsar suddenly proclaimed, contrary to the Treaty of Berlin, that the
port of Batum was closed to foreign trade. His point of view was
characteristic. His father had, autocratically, expressed in 1878 his
intention to open the port; this had been done, and it had proved in
practice a failure; as a purely administrative act, he (Alexander III)
now declared the port closed, _et tout était dit_. But naturally foreign
merchants resented the injury to their trade, and insisted on the
sanctity of treaties. The Berlin Government, as usual, left to Great
Britain all the odium incurred in making a protest, and the other
Continental powers were equally silent. Morier asserted the British
case so strongly that he roused even de Giers to vehemence; but when he
saw that protests would avail nothing, he advised his Government to cut
the loss and to avoid further bitterness. He reminded them that Russia
had given way in Bulgaria, where the British point of view had
prevailed, and that they must not expect her to submit to a second
diplomatic defeat. Besides, a quarrel between Russia and Great Britain
would only benefit a third party, ready enough to avail himself of it.
Harmony was preserved, but the risk of a breach had been very great, and
feeling was not improved by Russian activity at Sebastopol, where the
Pan-Slavists were acclaiming the new birth of the Black Sea fleet. The
death of Katkoff in 1887, and of Tolstoy in 1889, with the advent of
more Liberal ministers, strengthened de Giers's hands; and during his
later years, though he often needed great vigilance and tact, Morier was
not troubled by any crisis so severe.
The Grand Cross of the Bath, which he received in 1887, was a fitting
reward for the services he had rendered to England and to Europe in this
anxious time. He never lost heart or despaired of a peaceful solution.
At bottom, as he often repeats, Russia was not ready for big
adventures--was, in fact, still suffering from lassitude after the war
of 1878, 'like an electric eel which, having in one great shock given
off all its electricity, burrows in the mud to refill its battery,
desiring nothing less than to come again too soon into contact with
organic tissue'.
Apart from _la haute politique_ and the conflicts between governments,
Morier's own compatriots were giving him plenty to do. A few instances
will illustrate the variety of the applications which reached the
Embassy. Captain Beaufort requests a special permit to visit Kars and
its famous fortifications. Mr. Littledale asks for a Russian guide to
help him in an ascent of Mount Ararat. Father Perry, S.J. (the Jesuits
were specially obnoxious to the Holy Synod), wishes to observe a solar
eclipse only visible in Russia. Another traveller, Mr. Fairman, is
summarily arrested near Rovno where the Tsar's visit is making the
police unduly brisk for the moment. Morier procures him a prompt
apology; but, not content with this, the Englishman now thinks himself
entitled to a personal audience with the Tsar and the gift of some
decoration to compensate him, which suggestion draws a curt reply from
the much-vexed ambassador. But he was always ready to help a genuine
explorer, whether it was Mr. de Windt in Trans-Caucasia or Captain
Wiggins in the Kara Sea. To the latter, in his efforts to establish
trade between Great Britain and Siberia by the Yenisei river, Morier
lent most valuable aid, and he is proud to report the concessions which
he won for our merchants in a new field of commerce.
Meanwhile he found occasion to cultivate friendships with Russians and
foreign diplomats of all kinds. Of the more important he sends home
interesting sketches to his superiors in Whitehall, Vischnegradsky, the
'wizard of finance', who raised the value of the rouble 30 per cent.,
became one of his intimate friends. When that ambiguous figure, Witte,
his rival and successor, tried to discredit him, Morier vindicated with
warmth the honesty and patriotism of his friend. Baron Jomini of the
Foreign Office was of a different kind, witty, volatile, audaciously
outspoken, more like a character in Thackeray's novels. Pobedonóstsev,
the Procurator of the Holy Synod, remained 'somewhat of an enigma'--as
we can easily believe when we hear that this bigoted Churchman, the
terror of the Jews, had been a friend of Dean Stanley, and was still
fond of English literature and English theology.
Still more amusing are the stories which he tells of foreign visitors of
high station--of the Duke of Orleans playing truant without the
knowledge of his parents and being snubbed by his Grand Ducal
relatives; of Dal[=i]p Singh touring the provinces with a disreputable
entourage and trying to make trouble for the British at Moscow; of the
Prince of Montenegro and his beautiful daughters, whom Morier heartily
admires--'tall and massive, strong-limbed and comely, the true type of
the mothers of heroes in the Homeric sense'.
With the Court his relations were excellent. His intimacy with members
of our own royal family helped him, and his geniality and
unconventional, natural manner won favour with the Romanoffs, who
retained in their high station a great deal of simplicity. More than
once Morier seized an opportunity for an act of special courtesy to the
Tsar; and Alexander appreciated this from a man whose character was too
well known for him to be suspected of obsequiousness.
But the life in St. Petersburg was not all pleasure, even when
diplomatic waters were quiet. The work was hard, the climate was very
exacting with its extremes of temperature, and epidemics were rife. In
November 1889 he reports the appearance of 'Siberian Catarrh, more
usually described under the general name of Influenza', which was
working havoc in girls' schools and guardsmen's barracks, and had laid
low simultaneously Emperor, Empress, and half the imperial family.
Morier himself became increasingly liable to attacks of ill-health, and
found difficulty in discharging his duties regularly. It required a keen
sense of duty for him to stay at his post; and when in December 1891 he
was appointed to the Embassy at Rome, he was very willing to go. But
public interest stood in the way. He had made for himself an exceptional
place at St. Petersburg. No one could be found to replace him
adequately, and the Tsar expressed a desire that his departure should be
postponed. He consented to stay on, and the next two years of work in
that climate, together with the death in 1891 of his only son, broke
his spirit and his strength. Too late he went in search of health, first
to the Crimea and then to Switzerland. Death came to him as the winter
of 1893 was approaching, when he was at Montreux on the Lake of Geneva,
close to the home of his ancestors.
The impression which he made on his friends and colleagues is clear and
consistent, and the ignorance of the general public about men of his
profession justifies a few quotations. Sir Louis Mallet brackets him
with Sir James Hudson[45] and Lord Cromer as 'the most admirable trio of
public servants he had known'. Sir William White speaks of him and Odo
Russell as 'two giants of the diplomatic service'. Lord Acton, who knew
Europe as well as any Foreign Minister, and weighed his words, refers to
him in 1884 as 'our only strong diplomatist', and again 'as a strong
man, resolute, ready, well-informed and with some amount of real
resource'. More than one Foreign Secretary has borne testimony to the
value of Morier's dispatches; and Sir Charles Dilke, who, without
holding the portfolio himself, often shaped our foreign policy and was
an expert in European questions, is still more emphatic about his
intellectual powers, though he thinks that Morier's imperious temper
made him 'impossible in a small place'. Sir Horace Rumbold,[46] in his
_Recollections_, has many references to him, especially as he was in
earlier years. He speaks of Morier's 'prodigious fund of spirits that
made him the most entertaining, but not always the safest, of
companions'; 'of his imperious, not over-tolerant disposition'; 'of the
curious compound that he was of the thoughtless, thriftless Bohemian and
the cool, calculating man of the world'; of his 'exceptionally powerful
brain and unflagging industry'. Elsewhere he recalls Morier's journeys
among the Southern Slavs, in which he opened up a new field of
knowledge, and adds, 'since then he has made himself a thorough master
of German politics, and is, I believe, one of the few men whom Prince
Bismarck fears and correspondingly detests'.
[Note 45: Sir James Hudson, G.C.B., British minister at Turin during
the years of Cavour's great ministry; died 1885.]
[Note 46: Sir Horace Rumbold, G.C.B., Ambassador at Vienna
1896-1900; died 1913.]
Jowett's testimony may perhaps be discounted as that of an intimate
friend; yet he was no flatterer, and as he often criticized Morier
severely, it is of interest to read his deliberate verdict, given in
1873, that 'if he devoted his whole mind to it, he could prevent a war
in Europe'. Four years earlier Jowett had been told by a diplomatist
whom he respected, 'Morier is the first man in our profession'.
By those who still remember him, Morier is described as a diplomatist of
'the old school'. His noble presence, his courtly manner, and the
dignity which he observed on all ceremonial occasions, would have
qualified him to adorn the court of Maria Theresa or Louis Quatorze.
This dignity he could put off when the need for it was past. Among his
friends his manner was vivacious, his talk racy, his criticism free. He
was of the old school, too, in being self-confident and independent, and
in believing that he would do his best work if there were no telegraph
to bring frequent instructions from Whitehall. But he had not the
natural urbanity of Odo Russell, nor the invariable discretion of Lord
Lyons. He had hard work to discipline his imperious temper, and by no
means always succeeded in masking his own feelings. Perhaps too high a
value has been set on impenetrable reserve by those who have modelled
themselves on Talleyrand. By their very candour and openness some
British diplomatists have gained an advantage over rivals who confound
timidity with reserve, and have won a peculiar position of trust at
foreign courts. In dealing with de Giers, Morier at any rate found no
need to mumble or swallow his words. He was sure of himself and of his
honourable intentions. On one occasion, after reading to that minister
the exact words of the dispatch which he was sending to London, he
stated his policy to him categorically. 'I always went', he said, 'upon
the principle, whenever it could be done, of clearing the ground of all
possible misunderstandings at the earliest date.' Probably we shall
never see the end of 'secret diplomacy', whether under Tory, Liberal, or
Labour governments; but this is not the tone of one who loves secrecy
for its own sake.
In many ways Morier combined the qualities of the old and the new
schools. Though personally a favourite with kings and queens, he was
fully alive to the changes in the Europe of the nineteenth century,
where, along with courts and cabinets, other more unruly forces were at
work. His visit to Paris in 1848 showed his early interest in popular
movements, and he maintained a catholic width of view in later life. He
knew men of all sorts and kept himself acquainted with unofficial
currents of opinion. He could talk freely to journalists or to
merchants, could put them at their ease and get the information which he
wanted. His comprehensiveness was remarkable. The strife of politicians
in the foreground did not blur the distant landscape. In Russia, behind
Balkan intrigues and Black Sea troubles he could see the cloud of danger
overhanging the Pamirs. In Spain or Portugal he was watching and
forecasting the possibilities of the white races in Africa. So his
dispatches, varied and vivacious as they were, proved of the greatest
value to Foreign Secretaries at home, and furnish excellent reading
to-day.
In these dispatches a few Gallicisms occur; and in writing to an old
friend like Sir William White he uses a free mixture of French and
English with other ingredients for seasoning. But in general the
literary style is admirable. He has a rare command of language, a most
inventive use of metaphor, a felicitous touch in sketching a character
or an incident. Towards those working under him he was exacting, setting
up a high standard of industry, but he was generous in his praise and
very ready to take up the cudgels for them when they needed support. In
commending one of them, he selects for special praise 'his old-fashioned
conscientiousness about public work and his subordination of private
comfort'. He inherited this tradition from his own family and his
faithfulness to it cost him his life.
Above all, we feel in reading these letters and memoranda that here is a
man whose aim is truth rather than effect--not thinking of commending a
programme to thousands of half-informed readers or hearers, in order to
win their votes, but giving counsel to his peers, Odo Russell or Sir
William White, Lord Granville or Lord Salisbury, on events and
tendencies which affect the grave issues of peace and war and the lives
of thousands of his fellow-countrymen. This generation has learnt how
unsafe it is to treat these in a parliamentary atmosphere where men
force themselves to believe what they wish and close their eyes to what
is uncomfortable. While human nature remains the same, democracy cannot
afford to deprive itself of such counsel or to belittle such a
profession.
JOSEPH LISTER
1827-1912
1827. Born at West Ham, April 5.
1844-52. University College, London.
1851. Acting House Surgeon under Erichsen.
1852. First research work published.
1853. Goes to Edinburgh. House Surgeon under Syme.
1855. Assistant Surgeon and Lecturer at Edinburgh Infirmary.
1856. Marries Agnes Syme.
1860. Appointed Professor of Clinical Surgery at Glasgow.
1865. Makes acquaintance with Pasteur's work.
1866-7. Antiseptic treatment of compound fractures and abscesses.
1867. Papers on antiseptic method in the _Lancet_.
1869. Appointed Professor of Surgery at Edinburgh.
1872-5. Conversion of leading scientists in Germany to Antisepticism.
1875. Lister's triumphal reception in Germany.
1877. Accepts professorship at King's College, London.
1879. Medical congress at Amsterdam. Acceptance of Lister's
methods by Paget and others in London.
1882. von Bergmann develops Asepticism in Berlin.
1883. Lister created a Baronet.
1891. British Institute of Preventive Medicine incorporated.
1892. Lister attends Pasteur celebration in Paris.
1893. Death of Lady Lister.
1895-1900. President of Royal Society.
1897. Created a Peer.
1902. Order of Merit.
1907. Freedom of City of London: last public appearance.
1912. Dies at Walmer, February 10.
JOSEPH LISTER
SURGEON
In a corner of the north transept of Westminster Abbey, almost lost
among the colossal statues of our prime ministers, our judges, and our
soldiers, will be found a small group of memorials preserving the
illustrious names of Darwin, Lister, Stokes, Adams, and Watt, and
reminding us of the great place which Science has taken in the progress
of the last century. Watt, thanks partly to his successors, may be said
to have changed the face of this earth more than any other inhabitant of
our isles; but he is of the eighteenth century, and between those who
developed his inventions it is not easy to choose a single
representative of the age. Stokes and Adams command the admiration of
all students of mathematics who can appreciate their genius, but their
work makes little appeal to the average man. In Darwin's case no one
would dispute his claim to represent worthily the scientists of the age,
and his life is a noble object for study, single-hearted as he was in
his devotion to truth, persistent as were his efforts in the face of
prolonged ill-health. No better instance could be found to show that the
highest intellectual genius may be found united with the most endearing
qualities of character. Kindly and genial in his home, warmly attached
to his friends, devoid of all jealousy of his fellow scientists, he
lived to see his name honoured throughout the civilized world; and many
who are incapable of appreciating his originality of mind can find an
inspiring example in the record of his life. There is no need to make
comparisons either of fame, of mental power, or of character; but the
choice of Lister may be justified by the fact that his science, the
science of Health and Disease, is one of absorbing interest to all men,
and that with his career is bound up the history of a movement fraught
with grave issues of life and death from which few families have been
exempt.
About these issues bitter controversies have raged; but it is to the
lesser men that the bitterness is due. By his family traditions, as well
as by his natural disposition, Lister was a man of peace; and though he
left the Society of Friends at the time of his marriage, he retained a
respect for their views which accorded well with his own nature. When
he had to speak or write on behalf of what he believed to be the truth,
it was from no motive of self-assertion or combativeness. He had the
calm contemplative mind of the student, whereas Bright, the Quaker
tribune, the champion of Repeal, had all the fervour of the man of
action. Lister's family had been Quakers since the beginning of the
eighteenth century; and at this time too they moved from Yorkshire to
London, where his grandfather and father were engaged in business as
wine merchants. But Joseph Jackson Lister, who married in 1818, and
became in 1827 the father of the famous surgeon, was much more than a
merchant. He had taught himself the science of optics, had made
improvements in the microscope, and had won his way within the sacred
portals of the Royal Society. Letters have been preserved which show us
how keen his interest in science always remained, and with what full
appreciation he entered into the researches which his son was making as
professor at Glasgow in the middle of the century. A father like this
was not likely to grudge money on the boy's education; but for the
Friends many avenues to knowledge were still closed, including the
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He had to be content to go
successively to Quaker schools at Hitchin and Tottenham, and from the
latter to proceed, at the age of seventeen, to University College,
London, which was non-sectarian. There the teaching was good, the
atmosphere favourable to industry, and Lister was not conscious of
hardship in missing the delights of youth that fell to his more
fortunate contemporaries.
His father lived in a comfortable house at Upton, some six miles east of
London Bridge, in a district now completely swamped by the growth of the
vast borough of West Ham. He kept up close relations with other Quaker
families living in the neighbourhood, especially the Gurneys of
Plashets. In their circle the most striking figure was Elizabeth Fry,
who from 1813 to her death in 1843 devoted herself unsparingly to the
cause of prison reform. From his home the father continued to exercise a
strong influence over his son, who was industrious and serious beyond
his years.
From his father Lister learned as a boy to delight in the use of the
microscope. He learned also to use his own power of observation, and to
make hand and eye work together to minister to his studies. The power of
drawing, which the future surgeon thus early developed, stood him in
good stead later in life; and it is interesting to contrast his
enjoyment of it with the laments made by his great contemporary Darwin,
who felt keenly what he lost through his inability to use a pencil and
to preserve the record of what he saw in nature or in the laboratory.
Lister's school-days were over when he was seventeen years old and there
is nothing remarkable to tell of them; but his period at University
College was unusually prolonged. He was a student there for seven years
and continued an eighth year, after he had taken his degree, as Acting
House Surgeon. In 1848, half-way through his time, a physical breakdown
was brought on by overwork, just as he was finishing his general
studies; but a long holiday enabled him to recover his strength, and
before the end of the year he had begun the course of medical studies
which was to be his life-work.
At school his record had been good but not brilliant, nor did he come
quickly to the front in London. His mind was not of the sort which can
be forced to produce untimely fruit in the hot-house of examinations.
But his education was both extensive and thorough; it formed an
excellent general training for the mind and a good basis for the special
studies in which he was later to distinguish himself. He had been at
University College for two years before he gained his first medal; but
by 1850 he had made his name as the best man of his year, capable of
upholding the credit of his College against any rival in the
metropolis. Among his fellow students the best known in later years was
Sir Henry Thompson, whose portrait by Millais hangs in our National
Gallery. Among his professors one stands out pre-eminent, alike for his
character and for his influence on Lister's life. This was William
Sharpey, Professor of Physiology, an original man with a keen eye for
originality in others. In days when most English professors were content
with a narrow empirical training, he had trudged with his knapsack over
half Europe in quest of knowledge, had studied in France, Switzerland,
Italy, and Austria, and had made himself acquainted at first hand with
the best that was taught in their schools. He was a first-rate lecturer,
clear and simple, and took much pains to get to know his pupils. When
Lister had held for a short time the post of Acting House Surgeon at
University College Hospital, and needed to make definite plans for his
career, it was Sharpey who advised him to go north for a while and
attend some classes in Edinburgh before deciding on his course. Thus it
was Sharpey who introduced him to Scotland and to Syme.