tons, Wordsworths, Byrons, Shelleys, and other names which every one may supply according to his taste. The Irish, who have scarcely produced a single second-rate poet, or, what is even stranger in regard of some of the qualities ascribed to them, a second-rate humourist, are frequently contrasted with us to our disadvantage in this particular excellence. A better case might be made out for their oratorical capacities; and the difference suggests that possibly (for I propound no theory myself while condemning others) we ought to substitute for our fine sweeping assertion about imagination, one resting on a far more delicate distinction between the rhetorical and the poetical faculties.

ple, to so palpable a difference as that which make Frenchmen heaven-born cooks, and Englishmen quite the reverse. I advance even this statement with diffidence: for it is only a guess at a possible solution of a difficult problem.

Without further illustration, it seems to be sufficiently clear that, when we venture to make any distinct proposition about national characteristics, we are as often wrong as right, and generally make a hazardous inference from a particular case the ground of a sweeping assertion, which, in most of its applications, is wrong, and is often the very reverse of the truth. The philosophy of national character has yet to be discovered. Unluckily, however, this collection To come to a point more closely connect- of loose, inaccurate, and often absurd stateed with our immediate subject, there are, or ments, forms the justification, if not the were, a whole set of current commonplaces cause, of our national antipathies. We about the differences between the French hate, or used to hate, a Frenchman, for the and English races, of which we may boldly sufficient, if unsatisfactory, reason that he say that there is not one which does not was our neighbour. We justified our hacontain as much falsehood as truth. We tred by attributing to him a set of qualities used to boast about our exclusive posses- which he did not really possess, and which, sion of the word "home," and to infer as a rule, were merely conjectural explanathat French family life was a hollow sham, tions of phenomena, which sometimes existed and that French domestic affections were in reality, and sometimes only in our imagless warm than our own. Now it is notori-inations. Although educated people have ous that in many ways this is the very re-grown wiser, the Frenchman of the popular verse of the truth; and that, to take only fancy is still a mere bundle of qualities thus one instance, French families manage to live invented; the real being is as different as together on terms of intimacy which we find to be totally impracticable in England. Probably the assertion was due, in part, to a superficial study of a small but conspicuous class of French society, and to the dissolution of certain opinions in France under the influences of the eighteenth century, and partly to a simple misinterpretation of facts. A man who spends his evenings at a publichouse in London is generally a bad husband and father. Hasty tourists inferred that a Frenchman who frequented a café must necessarily be driven from his home by quarrels with his wife and children, or his own ill-regulated tastes, which is, perhaps, as absurd an inference as has often been drawn, and yet was once accepted as an undeniable truth. The proverbial remark about our own shopkeeping propensities is often supposed by the vulgar to mean that we, as a nation, are more attentive than our neighbours to pounds, shillings, and pence. Yet, as a matter of fact, everybody may observe that an ordinary Frenchman thinks more about a franc than his parallel in England about a half-crown, and that our faults and our actions are both connected with a propensity to extravagance or liberality (it matters not which it is called) which leads to many conspicuous results; as, for exam

possible, although even the wisest of us are far from knowing what he precisely is. The political theories founded on this untrustworthy groundwork of guesses and exaggerations are, to my mind, worth little or nothing; but, at any rate, the national antipathies founded upon them are equally foolish and injurious. I doubt our real possession of any one of the qualities on which we plume ourselves, or our liability to any of the faults for which we most frequently do penance. I do not, indeed, deny that we have made some rough approximations to the truth, but I hold them to be utterly frivolous as the basis of national imputations or self glorifications.

Supposing, however, that those opinions have more value than I can admit, there is still another consideration. Stated shortly, it is this that we are all so much alike that we have no reason for vanity or humility. A book which made some sensation rather more than a century ago, argued with great naïveté, in defence of two propositions: the first was that the British Constitution was the noblest invention of man, and the pride and envy of the world; the second, that the English people were utterly degraded and demoralized, and going to ruin as fast as possible, whilst the French, though equally

bad by nature, were kept by their Govern- | systematically abusing French principles, ment in some degree of efficiency and re- and by implication the race which asserts spectability. It was odd that the writer did them. Unless they prove, what is quite not observe the difficulty of reconciling his propositions; but the same contradiction is involved in half the commonplace dissertations on the subject. The English race, they tell us, is the finest in the world; the English institutions are the happiest system ever known. And yet, when we look for the natural conclusion, that the English people are the wisest and happiest on the face of the earth, we are cruelly disappointed. We find that more often peoples made of inferior materials and governed abominably ill, are nevertheless held up for our imitation, as clearly ahead of us in all sorts of important matters. They are better educated, more moral, and generally more capable of leading rational and civilized lives. Obviously there must be some mistake in the premises which lead to such admittedly erroneous conclusions. Perhaps our institutions may not be absolutely perfect; but, as I shrink from such a heresy, I would rather say that other races have probably some good qualities, of which we have failed to take account. It is plain that, with the best will in the world, we cannot venture to assert that we are really, on a general and impartial view of the subject, distinctly better than our neighbours. There is some law of compensation which makes up one way what is wanting in others, and forbids any one to say, without the grossest presumption, that any civilized race is fairly at the head of the world. Each has quite as much to learn as to teach, and, in the long run, must be content with asserting its claims to being an important member of the great family.

impossible to prove, that the French are, as a whole, inferior to ourselves, their virtuous warmth only demonstrates that there are certain good qualities to which they are invariably blind. It was proper, some time ago, when nobody read German books, to impress upon Englishmen generally that the Germans had really some remarkably good qualities both in literature and practical life. The people who undertook that task naturally grew fond of their clients, and it became common to contrast, in all kinds of ways, German simplicity and earnestness, and imaginative power with the supposed defects of Frenchmen in the same capacities. Now that the balance has been redressed, this zeal seems to be out of place, and to tend to an equal exaggeration of the opposite kind. When our writers were absurdly given to Johnsonese, and the elaborate pomposity of Latinized sentences, it was as well to point out the value of the Saxon elements of our language; we may now be content to admit that a good writer should show an equal command of all our resources. When the negative philosophy of Voltaire and his school threatened to be in the ascendant, it was a good service to set forth, as Coleridge did, amongst others, that there was in existence a philosophy of different tendencies. We may now speak without fear of the great and most valuable excellencies of the French intellect. It is time that we should endeavour to do justice to every one, and abandon the attempt to find exclusive merit in any of the great divisions of the European races.

It is true that there are many nations to This being so, the prejudices of which we whom this does not apply. We are suffiare so proud are necessarily ridiculous. I ciently superior to some savage tribes to hate a man in private life, for I confess to justify us, if we please, in regarding their hate some people, for excellent reasons; I malpractices as indications of generally hate the man at the club who always engages lower morality, as well as lower intellithe particular newspapers that I want, be- gence. We might hate them with the same cause he shows a revolting selfishness; I right as we hate a malevolent fool - assumhate the man who abuses me, because he is ing, for the moment, that we ought ever to obviously insensible to a high class of merit; to hate anybody. But it is precisely in this I hate the man whose theological or political case, where dislike might be justified on opinions are opposite to my own, because logical grounds, that we cease to feel it. he must plainly be stupid or insincere. All We admit when people are clearly weaker, this may be unchristian, but is not illogical. and probably worse than ourselves, that But to hate (or, indeed, to love) a nation their errors are to be excused on the ground must, on the face of it, be foolish. Such a of their temptations and their weakness. sentiment implies that the nation is in its The remote settler hates the native, who nature worse than our own; whereas, as we takes his scalp, or occasionally dines off his have just admitted, one nation is in the long family. But we, being conscious of our run pretty much as good as another. Some perfect security, can afford to regard the very excellent writers whom I could name, perishing races of the world, like the chimthink that they display their wisdom by panzee, as objects neither of love nor

hatred, though, it may be, of more or less |lence. But a nation is, and ought to be, humane feeling. We wish them to be systematically selfish. It may show more treated kindly, but they are not near enough or less regard to certain conventional rules to our level to excite any jealousy, or any of behaviour towards its neighbours, but at strong antipathy. To make out a good cause bottom it does what it thinks, on the whole, for aversion, we should prove that with the will answer best for its own prosperity, and same powers and the same opportunities as its views upon such matters are determined ourselves, a nation or an individual has by its position and circumstances. It acts, gone wrong, from what Artemus Ward de-at best, as a selfish man acts who does not scribed as 66 pure cussedness." And this is want to get into trouble with the police, but precisely the phenomenon which, common is thoroughly determined to make his own as it is in private life-specially amongst fortune, without caring much about his our partners in business, our children, and influence on his neighbour. There are generally our intimates in any capacity-excellent reasons why such conduct is, on is not exemplified amongst any existing na- the whole, the best for mankind at large, tions. and we have quite enough to do in looking In this, as in many other ways, we cher- after our own interests. But, obviously, ish absurd feelings, owing to our prevailing gratitude or resentment is as much out of trick of personification. We attribute all place in dealing with such a body as in an our virtues and failings to an imaginary ordinary commercial transaction. To buy Leviathan, as Hobbes would have called in the cheapest market and sell in the dearhim, known as John Bull. He is not only est is not the highest ideal of Christian the ideal embodiment of our supposed pe- duty; but it is all that a nation can properculiarities, but answers as a kind of tangible ly or habitually do. If our plans have been symbol, by the contemplation of which our crossed or aided by a rival power, it is enemies work up their wrath into a proper simply because it was their interest to do white heat. He does the same duty as that so. France did not help America to indeunlucky figurehead upon which Mr. Quilp pendence from any romantic notions, but exhausted his overflowings of unattached because they thought, according to the fury; and is as useful, in his way, as Guy politics of the time, that it was their interFaux's effigy to the Protestant bigot. When est to upset the English empire; and WashFenians and their friends denounce England ington very properly inferred that Amerin the American newspapers, they instinct-icans owed no particular gratitude to ively bring out this concrete image to be Frenchmen. When a nation abuses us, it exposed to the storms of their rhetoric. is merely the abuse of a large number of There is felt to be a certain absurdity in abusing twenty millions of a population which, in the main, is good-tempered, ignorant, and profoundly innocent of any overt actions or any opinions on the subject; but when they are all symbolized as a single bloated and arrogant monster, with topboots and a bull-dog, it seems only natural to belabour him, and plaster him with filth. Pascal tells us how absurd it is that two men should take the utmost pride in killing each other because they happen to live on opposite sides of the river; and, after making all the obvious deductions, it must be admitted that war is, at bottom, a very shocking system in many ways. But its atrocity is concealed by our habit of talking habitually, as if a nation were really one man, and responsible for all the bad language or acts of folly that its officials may commit. Were it not for this habit we should get rid of the common error of believing that foreign politics should be decided by motives of gratitude and resentment. There is ground for such feelings towards individuals, because individuals do act, more or less, from spite or from unselfish benevo

people talking about matters on which they are specially ignorant, and uttering opinions which are the inevitable consequence of their position in the world. Why should we care to resent their empty phrases? The sooner we get rid of any infusion of sentiment in such matters the sooner we shall understand each other, and be able to come to a reasonable agreement not to cut throats and blow up ships unnecessarily.

So far as this argument goes to imply the unreasonableness of animosity against foreigners, it would perhaps be generally accepted. We are all anxious to enter upon the period of universal philanthropy, it being well understood that we may begin it by clearing away a few savages, rectifying a few frontiers, upsetting half-a-dozen kingdoms, and remodelling the map of the world. These preliminaries once settled, we earnestly desire to sit down under our own vines and fig-trees, and listen peacefully to such revilings or eulogies as foreigners may be disposed to bestow upon ourselves and others. There is, however, one more conclusion which is still a little unpleasant. If hatred and love of a nation

or Swedish, or Dutch, or Spanish, or, it may be Portuguese soldiers, are invincible. From which it may be confessed, that it is unfortunate that the bayonet is so seldom used that the point can hardly be decided; and also that one or other of these assertions must be false. I have a suspicion, founded partly on my own consciousness, and partly on avowals not often made in print, that the real contest on a battle-field is one not of courage but of cowardice. I believe that military history is really what all history has been declared to be, a conspiracy to conceal the truth. There is every inducement to enormous lying about battles, and nobody has any interest in giving us the plain facts without the gloss, as the smoke and the roar of cannons conceal

are alike unreasonable, it follows that we ought not to like our own. We ought to be graceful cosmopolites, acknowledging no ties of country, free from all vulgar prejudices, and regarding the kingdoms of the world, and their intrigues and squabblings, in the spirit with which we should look upon the doings in another planet. International prejudices, from this point of view, may be a folly, and patriotism must be a vice. I confess that I am inclined to accept the conclusion. Patriots, as a general rule, seem to me to be a very hotheaded and noxious set of people; and their favourite virtue to be a convenient cloak for all the most mischievous prejudices that are current in the world. Why should I "glory in the name of Briton?" Is there any particular satisfaction in being for a time half the horrors of the occasion. the inhabitant of an island to which nobody The bombastic rhetoric of military histodenies a good many virtues, but which rians conceals the cowardice, and the meancertainly has as many faults as it can con- ness, and the brutality by which these horveniently manage to get along with? Peo- rors are produced. Whenever I have had ple tell me that this, and that, and the other an opportunity of seeing men in dangerous thing is grossly wrong; that our prevailing positions, I have remarked that even animal beliefs are narrow and provincial, that our courage, so far from being common, is one government is a muddle, that our educa- of the rarest of qualities. Our instinct, tion is contemptible, that our politics are whatever we may say, is to look another petty, and, after saying a great deal more way when we hear cries of murder, and to of the same kind, and much more, indeed, be unavoidably occupied in important busithan I believe to be true, they turn roundness when there is likely to be a row in the upon me with immense indignation, if I streets. Discipline works wonders in a venture to sum up all these criticisms in crowd of cowards, by providing them with one, and say that Englishmen are no better as good motives for standing still as for than their neighbours, and that they ought running away, and by forming an artificial not to give themselves airs as if they were. instinct for obeying orders in moments of We may find fault with every particular confusion. But I never met a brave man detail in the country, and be praised for who did not confess to being terribly frightdoing it; but the inference that the whole ened in his first action, whilst it is a wellis faulty, is regarded as a crime against known truth that the more you see of such patriotism and as an unpardonable sin. If things the less you like them. From all we put the criticism with any force, we are which I infer that the prevailing opinion of finally assured, by way of an unanswerable the courage of each particular race must be condemnation, that our views are un-Eng- a measure as much of its powers of lying as lish. Yet, as an honest man, can't avoid of its natural disposition to fight. I would certain conclusions. Every national com- rather not stake my patriotic feelings on monplace has its counterpart. We boast, the existence of a quality which is the chosor used to boast, that when a slave put his en subject for the most monstrous self-defoot on English soil his chains dropped off. ception. Take any set of men, dress them When a similar question was argued in in one colour, and accustom them to stand France a hundred years ago it was met by in a row, and they will, in all probability, a similar sentiment. 66 Dès qu'un esclave be more afraid of running away than of anyest entré en France," said the lawyers, "il thing else. Their merit will depend on the y devient libre." Is England or France intelligence with which they are combined the land of liberty? Every nation, again, much more than on any intrinsical pugnacin Europe, so far as I know, asserts with a ity. What is generally called patriotism unanimous voice that, whatever other faults leads us to sink these notorious facts, and it may possess, its soldiers are the bravest to brag intolerably about the most doubtful in the world. In other matters they may of all merits. And consequently our polihave their equals, but once let them come tics too often resemble the behaviour of a to the bayonet, and then it will be seen that couple of cowardly dogs, who growl at English, or French, or German, or Russian, | each other with every hair bristling by way

of concealing their real state of mind, till at last one of them bites the other from sheer nervous irritability. It will be long before we venture to tell the truth about our extreme unwillingness to be shot, and we shall continue to boast of the patriotism involved in keeping up a childish game of brag. Often as the absurdity of the proceeding may be exposed, it will not be really weakened till the spirit of patriotism | is more or less sapped at its base.

lives to their improvement without believing that they are one bit better or cleverer than their neighbours. Being an Englishman, I rceognize the duties which my position imposes upon me, and am yet satisfied that Englishmen are full of the grossest faults and stupidities. I don't think that they are in any serious degree the superiors of any of the nations with which they come in contact; but practically, it may be, I would do as much to improve them as those who talk the greatest nonsense about their supposed good qualities, and especially, I should be willing to do them the proverbially unpleasant service of exposing their faults; but whenever I come in contact with any specially notorious evil, I am put down with solemn appeals to local self-government, or the British Constitution, or the interests of this great empire, or some other idol to which we have been accustomed to pay a blind reverence. I am bound to swear by

Of course, I might be easily answered by a long string of statements about the beneficial results which patriotism has at different times produced. I would willingly admit every one of them; but they only prove, what no sensible man denies, that many false opinions have been of essential service to mankind. The great majority of the existing race of mankind still believes in religious creeds which we know to be false; yet it would be an incalculable evil if they were deprived of those creeds, without re-every abuse, and to defend every possible ceiving anything better in their place. The misconduct at home or abroad, so long as it inhabitants of a certain small island, known can be brought under one of these sacred by the nickname of Bimshire, believe, I am principles, or to be described as, in some told, that they are the very cream of the sense, the act of the collective people. This world. They exclaim, " Bimshire, with all is the obligation which I altogether repudithy faults we love thee still!" They think ate, for the simple reason that we know, as that Bimshire could, if it liked, rule the main; clearly as we know anything, that neither and that after the decay of other nations, our institutions nor our character are, as a Bimshire will flourish, great and free, the whole, better than those of our neighbours, dread and envy of them all. If the effect of The duties which are imposed upon us in these opinions is to make the Bims more the name of patriotism might be urged, energetic and reforming than they would with at least equal force, on the ground otherwise be, it would be a poor service to that we are specially stupid and immoral; Bimshire to prove to its inhabitants, in the and though I consider such an assertion to clearest way, that other nations possess be as erroneous as its opposite, I should nearly as much virtue and talent as they do not try to howl down anybody who made themselves. Indeed, to take a more limited it. We suffer grievously from a supposed circle, everybody knows families which have necessity of omniscience in such matters. been much benefited by the belief that there The number of people who can really form never were such people in the world as the any judgment as to the comparative merits Browns, or Joneses, or Robinsons. It is a of English and foreign nations might be good thing that a man should stick by his reckoned almost on one's fingers. The ' brother, even when his brother has been number of people who make the most conconvicted of picking pockets; and if his fra- fident and dogmatic assertions about it, and ternal affection is kept up by the belief that who fancy that they are specially virtuous the pickpocket is a perfect character in spite for so doing, is almost incalculable. Of all of his little failings, we need not be too European countries England is probably anxious to dispel so pleasant an illusion. that where the most utter ignorance preBut this does not prove that we might not vails as to the history, statistics, institube at once wiser and better, that we might tions, and politics of every other country; not get rid of the illusion without sacrificing and, therefore, I don't see the virtue of the good feeling. We have been placed cherishing opinions which can only be verifor good or for evil in a certain small island fied or refuted by an amount of investigaand brought into the closest connection with tion which is scarcely within human capacits inhabitants; we may surely be profoundly ity, and most unequivocally beyond our attached to them and willing to devote our own.

A CYNIC.