Abbildungen der Seite

lowed by a reaction of internal feuds to abolish the Capitulations and to oband other forces of disruption.

tain tariff autonomy, for the greater In these immediate causes and re- glory of Islam and the defenders of the sults of revolution, the state of China Faith; Young China cherishes similar has therefore much in common with hopes, but chiefly in view of the luthat of Turkey. But these things, as crative opportunities thereupon deI have said, are on the surface; beneath pending. The Turkish Revolution was them, less obvious to the passer-by, accomplished by the army, loyally fulbut more vitally important, there exist filling the purpose of the nation; the fundamental differences in the struc- Chinese Revolution was the work of tural and political character of the two students, journalists, and mandarins, races (as well as in their environment) effected almost without fighting; and which, in determining their respective the army of the Republic now constidestinies, must eventually outweigh tutes its chief danger. the temporary and semi-accidental as- Another fundamental difference becendency of any particular class of tween the races, far-reaching in its politicians. The instincts and tradi- political results, lies in the deep-rooted tions of Asiatic races cannot be sud- religious faith of the Turkish people, denly changed by the drafting of a and the agnostic indifference of the Constitution; in the long run, every Chinese. The Mahomedan faith gives nation gets the government it deserves, something more than dignity to the all political quidnuncs to the contrary true believers; the Koran and the notwithstanding.

Sacred Law are the inspiration of the Amongst the important differences nation's unity: the Sword and the Banbetween the Turkish nation and the ner of the Prophet are the strong bulChinese, the most conspicuous lies in warks of its defences. For the Chithe fact that whereas the Chinese are nese, hereditary agnostics and passive a homogeneous people, bound together resisters by instinct, such a thing as a by community of traditions, laws, and Holy War is inconceivable

the folly literature, the Turks of the Ottoman of outer barbarians. But it is because Empire are practically an army of oc- of their religious faith that the Turks cupation, environed by subject races, have clung to the things which still more or less hostile. The spirit which hold the Empire together; to the Heir of moves Young Turkey is a spirit of mili- Osman on his sacred Throne, to the tant Ottomanism; the spirit which observances and feasts of the Law, to moves Young China, pace the fire- reverence of elders, and to discipline. brands of Canton, is a doctrinaire All these things, together with the spirit of political speculation. The ethical restraints of Confucianism, dream of the Young Turk is to restore Young China would cast by the board, the military power and prestige of the letting the ship of State drift rudderless Empire, undermined by the pernicious on perilous seas, hoping somehow and rule of Abdul Hamid; to recover Bos- some day to reach the Utopian Lotusnia and Bulgaria and Crete. The ideal land of its imagination. Moreover, professed by Young China is rather because in Turkey experience and wisthat of the Hague Conference and dom count for more than enthusiasm, Count Tolstoi, ideal of

and because the final control of Govfounded on reason, together with uni- ernment rests with the Elder States. versal recognition of the intellectual men, it is possible for the Porte, withand moral superiority of the Chinese out loss of prestige, to avail itself of

The Young Turk hopes in time the services of foreign advisers for the




[ocr errors]

adjustment of its finances, for the su- public speakers and writers. Take, pervision of its revenues, and even for for instance, the question of the abothe restoration of order in its discon- lition of the Monarchy, settled (for the tented provinces, giving to these ad- time being) by a handful of Cantonese visers a free hand within reasonable students, upon democratic principles delimits of authority and deriving from rived from American text-books; or the their services no small profit, as in the correlated question of the fitness of case of the Customs. In China, the the Chinese race for representative classes at present dominant are government. Many passages might be deeply imbued with the self-sufficiency cited from Mill's essay on the latter and the valor of ignorance, that the subject, which should give pause to the employment of Europeans in any enthusiasts who believe that a new era position of authority is regarded as

has dawned for China with the procquite unnecessary waste of money and lamation of the Republic. The followloss of "face." That the Powers ing quotations will serve, taken from should even suggest supervision over the chapter headed "Under what social the expenditure of borrowed capital conditions representative Government is construed as a direct violation of the is inapplicable": Republic's “sovereign rights,” besides The same passages of history forcibly being a clear loss of the individual op- illustrate another mode in which unportunities of patriots.

limited monarchy overcomes obstacles In discussing political and economic

to the progress of civilization which

representative government would have questions with the Progressives of

had a decided tendency to aggravate. China and Turkey alike, one finds at

One of the strongest hindrances to imevery turn deep traces of the influence

provement, up to a rather advanced exercised on their minds by the philos- stage, is an inveterate spirit of locality. ophers and essayists of the French Portions of mankind, in many respects Revolution, and by the later political capable of, and prepared for, freedom, economists of England. The works of

may be unqualified for amalgamating John Stuart Mill, in particular, are

into even the smallest nation. Not

only may jealousies and antipathies well known to Eastern students

repel them from one another, and bar (though more especially in India and

all possibility of voluntary union, but China), the directness and lucidity of

they may not yet have acquired any his inductive logic and the benevolence of the feelings or habits which would of his philosophy appealing powerfully make the union real, supposing it to be to the Oriental mind. But the Chinese nominally accomplished. They may, student, like other men, is apt to find

like the citizens of an ancient commuin the works of the wise men of the

nity, or those of an Asiatic village,

have had considerable practice in exWest, those things which his own pre

ercising their faculties on village or conceived ideas impel him to seek-

town interests, and have even realized the things which justify his own con- a tolerably effective popular governclusions. Therefore, we find the influ- ment on that restricted scale, and may ence of Mill directed chiefly into chan- yet have but slender sympathies with nels where, meeting with that of Rous- anything beyond, and no habit or caseau and Voltaire, it flows towards the

pacity of dealing with interests comuncharted storm-tossed seas of Liberty,

mon to many such communities.

The third cause of failure in a repreEquality, and Fraternity; whilst those

sentative government is, when the peothings which would seem to have been

ple want either the will or the capacity specially written for the learning of to fulfil the part which belongs to them Young China, are rarely quoted by its in a representative constitution. When


nobody, or only some small fraction, contrivance which prima facie might feels the degree of interest in the gen. be expected to lighten it. eral affairs of the State necessary to

To sum up. The Turkish Revolution the formation of a public opinion, the electors will seldom make any use of

was a movement effectively organized the right of suffrage but to serve their

against the real tyranny of a corrupt private interest, or the interest of their and vindictive ruler by the leaders of locality, or of some one with whom a highly centralized military Power; they are connected as adherents or de- its objects were, not to destroy the pendents. The class who, in this state social structure of the dominant race, of public feeling, gain the command of

but to solidify its power and to conthe representative body, for the most

ciliate or divide the non-Turkish elepart use it solely as a means of seeking

ments in the State. To this extent, it their fortune. If the executive is weak, the country is distracted by mere

was a Revolution justified by necessity struggles for place; if strong, it makes and, to some extent, by its results. itself despotic, at the cheap price of The Chinese Revolution has grown out appeasing the representatives, or such of the accidental success of an insigof them are capable of giving nificant local rebellion, precipitated by trouble, by a share of the spoil; and

the moral and physical helplessness of the only fruit produced by national

rulers who had lost all capacity for representation is, that in addition to

ruling Destitute of all constructive those who really govern, there is an as. sembly quartered on the public, and no

genius, without authoritative leaders abuse in which a portion of the assem- or permanent elements of cohesion, the bly are interested is at all likely to be Chinese Republic has been suddenly removed.

conferred upon a people that neither And

wants nor understands representative A people are no less unfitted for government. Under such conditions, representative government by extreme it would seem as if only a miracle, passiveness and ready submission to in the shape of a strong leader en. tyranny. If a people thus prostrated dowed with extraordinary political wisby character and circumstances could

dom-a Chinese Charlemagne or Peter obtain representative institutions, they

the Great-can save the nation from would inevitably choose their tyrants

complete disorganization and disrupas their representatives, and the yoke

tion. would be made heavier on them by the The National Review.

J. 0. P. Bland.


The critical treatment of the Art of Controversy simply as an art has been curiously neglected. I suppose the reason is that it is the very aim of the controversialist to distract attention from his art and concentrate it on his object. The silly phrase “Art for Art's sake" (which is either the tamest of truisms or an extravagant absurdity) can hardly be applied by the most audacious to the art of controversy in the sense that some have attempted to

apply it to the plastic arts. Controversy is not conducted for controversy's sake; it is conducted for truth's sake, or at least victory's sake. Eren those who think that Raphael painted his Madonnas "for Art's sake" and not for the Mother of God's sake, even those who will maintain that Velasquez in painting Phillip II-or for that matter Whistler himself in painting Carlyleared nothing for the personalities of their subjects, and re

garded them only as arrangements, will hardly go so far as to say that Swift did not care whether “Wood's Halfpence” were withdrawn or that Strafford did not care whether his head was cut off. Yet who will deny the title of the Drapier Letters or of Strafford's speech on his impeachment to be considered masterpieces of art?

Yet controversy, like any other art, can be considered from the purely artistic standpoint and its technical quality analyzed without reference to the rightness or wrongness of its aim. This is the obvious truism on which the æsthetic sophistry was reared. A good shot is a good shot, and if you are a technical judge of shooting you will judge impartially of the technical excellence of a shot whether it is fired by a patriot at his country's enemies or by a murderer at his wealthy uncle. It is hardly necessary to add that this does not mean-as the protagonists of the Unmorality of Art seem to suppose -that it does not matter whether you shoot your country's enemies or your wealthy uncle.

The object of controversy is, of course, to impress a certain conviction upon the minds of your readers or hearers. Yet all writing that seeks this end is not necessarily controversy. Many great didactic writers were indifferent to the art of controversy, or when they attempted it failed conspicuously. Carlyle was such a man; so was Ruskin. These great men preached-and preached most powerfully—but they preached to congregations. They did not debate with others; if ever either of them attempted to do so he failed lamentably. Exposition and the moving of men by rhetoric was the direction of their genius, not controversy. Carlyle was a greater man than Macaulay and has influenced the age far more profoundly, but had he engaged in controversy with Macaulay he would have been badly

mauled. Many will say-though I certainly should not—that Ruskin was a greater man than Huxley, but no one can think that Ruskin could have stood up to Huxley for ten minutes. The lamentable fate of poor Kingsley over the Apologia business may stand as a permanent warning to the eloquent, persuasive, imaginative, enthusiastic preacher not to allow himself to get within range of the guns of a genuine controversialist.

An analogy might be drawn between the relations of controversy to pure didactics and the relation of war to politics. The ultimate object of controversy is to produce conviction, as the ultimate object of war is to produce a political effect—to impose the will of one community on another. But in each case there is an immediate object without which the ultimate object cannot be achieved; and this object is the elimination of the opposing army or the opposing controversialist. To render the position of a controversial opponent untenable, to force him into self-contradiction or into with. drawal and to leave on the mind of a balanced reader the impression that his particular line of objection has ceased to exist–this is what the controversialist aims at: his success in this is the measure of his technical skill.

The three nineteenth-century names which I have already mentioned, as those of controversial experts, may well serve to illustrate the difference in effectiveness of various controversial methods. For each had his own special technique, which should be studied by those who wish to know how controversial victories are won, as carefully as the campaigns of great commanders are studied by men who wish to be proficient in military strategy.

The case of Macaulay is the more interesting, because it illustrates very well the distinction which I have drawn between the immediate and the ultimate end of controversy. In the ultimate end Macaulay, of course, fails. He does not convince us, even if he convinced his contemporaries, that that curious Whig version of history and politics which he preached so picturesquely is valid. Events have gone against him: his political creed has become incredible. But it is a gross injustice to allow that to blind us to the fact that he showed extraordinary genius as a controversialist in maintaining it. Nay, the very fact that he was so often in the wrong throws his ability as a controversialist into the higher relief. Take, for example, his attack upon Southey's Colloquies on Society. On the main points at issue, the evil effect of the industrial system upon the poor, the urgent necessity of a strong national government to control the anarchy of plutocratic commercialism, the need of a common religion if a community is to be happy and secure, Southey was certainly in the right and Macaulay as certainly in the wrong. But it is not less certain that in the actual battle Macaulay is the victor and Southey the vanquished. To deny this because Southey's view has been found ultimately more true to the needs of men would be as absurd as to deny the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo because France is not now ruled by the Bourbons.

If we try to examine the special quality of Macaulay's effectiveness in controversy we shall find, I think, that it consists very largely in the cumulative effect of a rapid repetition of blows, delivered successively at the same point and each a little stronger and heavier than the last. These things can best be illustrated by quotation, and I will take first a passage, not especially controversial, but illustrating the literary method which this process involves. It is all the better in that, like all that Macaulay wrote on

matters outside the purview of an English Whig, it is full of insular crudities, and quite misses the real point of view of those he is criticizing. It is from his essay on Mirabeau, and it is concerned with monarchical France before the Revolution and with Fénelon's importance as a figure therein.

The fundamental principles of Fénelon's political morality, the tests by which he judged of institutions and of men, were absolutely new to his countrymen. He had taught them indeed, with the happiest effect, to his royal pupil. But how incomprehensible they were to most people we learn from Saint Simon. That amusing writer tells us, as a thing almost incredible, that the Duke of Burgundy declared it to be his opinion that kings existed for the good of the people, and not the people for the good of the kings. Saint Simon is delighted with the benerolence of this saying; but startled by its novelty and terrified by its boldness. Indeed, he distinctly says that it was not safe to repeat the sentiment in the court of Lewis. Saint Simon was, of all the members of that court, the least courtly. He was as nearly an opposi. tionist as any man of his time. His disposition was proud, bitter and cyni. cal. In religion he was a Jansenist; in politics, a less hearty royalist than most of his neighbors. His opinions and his temper had preserved him from the illusions which the demeanor of Lewis produced on others. He neither loved nor respected the King. Yet even this man-one of the most liberal men in France—was struck dumb with astonishment at hearing the fundamental axiom of all government propounded-an axiom which, in our time, nobody in England or France would dispute-which the stoutest Tory takes for granted as much as the fiercest Radical, and concerning which the Carlist would agree with the most republican deputy of the “extreme left." No person will do justice to Fénelon, who does not constantly keep in mind that Telemachus was written in an age and nation in which bold and independent thinkers stared to hear

« ZurückWeiter »