« ElőzőTovább »
good position, she thought, so she stayed to see that he didn't.
"When you see a movement in the crowd in the other room, that will mean she's coming. Watch her as she comes - watch her carefully it will be rather unfair to us if you let yourself be disappointed. Here she is! Mr. Drummond, she is here!"
Lady Cleeve came resolutely forward to her mother, and seeing that, the train of followers fell back a step or two.
"Mother," she said, in a low voice, "go a little farther off, I want to say something to Mr. Drummond. Keep all those people away from us for a minute or two."
"You good darling!" exclaimed Mrs. Tancarville Sympson, "I knew you would find some way to oblige us all. You un derstand how our hearts are set on this picture. Don't hurry, let Mr. Drummond have a good look at you. I have told him he is not to talk to you. I will keep every one out of the way. In fact, I will explain to them why you want to speak to him." And having said all this loudly enough to be audible to Drummond, she went to the nearest guests and eagerly explained that this was a hurried sitting for a really important work of art.
"Mother does not know why I want to speak to you so much," whispered Lady Cleeve. "I want to ask you to forgive me." She held out her hand but it faltered on its way to him. Seeing that he showed no disposition to take it, she drew back and said, " You will shake hands with me, I hope?"
"Yes; but how could you treat me so?"
"THE grand leading principle towards which every argument unfolded in these pages directly converges is the absolute and essential importance of human development in its richest diversity." These words, quoted from Humboldt's work on "The Sphere and Duties of Government,' form the key-note of Mr. Mill's treatise "On Liberty." They express the central idea which he takes up, and amplifies with all his wealth of argument and illustration. If Mr. Mill thought it necessary in his own time to address his emphatic words to the world, much more, we think, would he consider it so now. For in these days it would seem as if individuality and origi nality stood in as great danger of being dwarfed and crushed as they ever did under any tyranny or despotism, howsoever oppressive. "The absolute and essential importance of human development in its richest diversity " is a principle which is too much lost sight of; or, rather, is a principle which is in a great measure incompatible and inconsistent with that tendency or flow of things which marks our present social and political state. This tendency we may call the tendency to uniformity; the tendency which goes to develop humanity "in its richest diversity" we may call the ten
"Well, no, not quite all. There was such a pretty ringa sapphire and diamond one in a second-hand shop, and I couldn't afford to buy it out of my allow-it ance it was seven pounds. Come, Mr. Drummond, don't look so vexed with a poor girl on her wedding-day. I admit it was a stupid thing to do, but no one is a bit the worse for it."
dency to individuality. Now, it is the tendency to uniformity which crushes and dwarfs the spirit of individuality, and more and more seems likely to become supreme in our society. It is a tendency that, although felt as an indivisible whole, is made up of several elements. It is like a river that pours onward in a mighty flood, increased by many streams.
Of such a nature is the tendency to uniformity which we at present witness. It derives its whole volume from three distinct sources. The first source is of a political nature; the second is of an economic nature; the third is of an educational nature. In other words, the tendency which now crushes the spirit of individuality may be traced to these three sources. They are the fons et origo of the whole evil, for an evil this loss of individuality must certainly be called. The first source we have called political, because it is from our present polity that this tendency to uniformity in a great measure flows. And we will take the political source first, because it is the most important. It is important because politics (which are only a grosser form of ethics) have to deal with conduct; and conduct is the greatest part of life-three-fourths of it, according to Mr. Matthew Arnold-art and science being one-eighth each; therefore we will consider the political source first, because it deals with the moral part of our nature, which is the greatest part, and then take up the economic and educational sources, which deal with the aesthetical and intellectual parts, which are smaller, but still important.
monarchy) their servants; the governing body no longer make the people obey, but the governing body obey the people and do their behests. This is the well-spring of democracy, and from it flows at once one part of the stream that swells the volume of the tendency that makes for uniformity. For mark what happens. The people elect representatives of their own mode of thinking, and imbued with their ideas on matters of policy; and the representatives in their turns express the thoughts and ideas of the people, and try to model the policy and legislation of the country upon them. And so it comes about that the people get brought back to them in the concrete form of laws and policy the very ideas the working out of which they had entrusted to their representatives. And these very laws and policies engender like modes of thinking, and fresh ideas of a similar nature. Thus things work round and round in an unending circle. The people elect representatives of their own ideas; the representatives carry out the ideas of the people; the ideas thus carried out engender like ideas. And so the people move round and round over the same ground, like the prisoner of Chillon, chained to a pillar of fixed ideas and furrowing deep footprints in the sands of time. But it may be answered that this is not so, that the elected governors instil new ideas into the minds of the people. And truly this might be so in an ideal democracy. But is it not the fact that the representatives of the people are more and more reduced to the position of delegates and mere mouthAlthough our constitution has outwardly pieces and conduit-pipes? And, indeed, the form of a limited monarchy, it is in- this is what representative government wardly and essentially a democracy; it comes more and more to mean. Repreonly differs from a republic by having an sentative of what? Not representative of hereditary instead of an elective head; it the people themselves, in the councilis only a republic in gold trappings, with a chambers of the nation, but representative few more dashes of ceremony thrown in. of the ideas of the people. Time was When Philip II. reproved his ambassador when members of Parliament repudiated for forgetting substance in ceremony, the the suggestion of their being mere deleambassador replied: "Your Majesty for- gates; now comparatively few would vengets that you are only a ceremony your-ture on such repudiation. And, more than self." And if Philip II. was "only a ceremony," much more is the monarch of our time. In any case, the majority now rules; and this is an essential part of the matter, for where the majority rules there is democracy. It has been well said that democracy is a sort of inverted monarchy; the monarch and his ministers rule the people; but in democracy the people, or rather the majority of the people, make the ministers of government and the monarch (where the constitution is a limited
this, the representative now ventures to encourage this idea of delegacy, and tries to act the delegate to the utmost. It was a cynical saying of Drummond that there were only two ways of governing mankind: by force or corruption, by grapeshot, or French cookery. Now it must be admitted that if grape-shot has often been the method of the despot, French cookery has often been the method of the representative of the people. He has pleased the ears, if not the palates, of the people;
men have been great by reason of their originality of thought and power of will. And, even though a monarch may not be thus endowed himself, he may yet have the faculty (and a no mean faculty it is) of being able to discern character and select the best advisers. It is in this way that many of the greatest of statesmen have won their way. They have been men of so.ideas, whom monarchs have had the wisdom to make their advisers. "My conception," says Lord Beaconsfield, “of a great statesman is of one who represents a great idea, an idea which may lead him to power; an idea with which he may identify himself; an idea which he may develop; an idea which he may and can impress on the mind and conscience of a nation." So that, while our democracy may fail to produce men of original power, it may be deprived of those great leaders who might arise under other forms of government. Let any one ask himself, for instance, which has had the greater lead. ers, Germany under the First Empire or France under the Third Republic? The gist of our accusation against the democracy as we at present have it, and are likely to have for some time to come, is that it tends to crush individuality, to stifle original thought, and to produce precisely that sort of soil which is likely to be barren in the growth of ideas. To try to get much individuality from our present democracy is like trying to pluck grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles. And so it comes about that a writer in the Spectator can write on the "Monotone" of modern life; and that Professor Max Müller can find himself able to say that in these days we are obliged to go to the "Red Book" to find out who is who, whereas in his earlier days the personality of original men was a power that made itself felt amongst all grades of society.
for it becomes his aim to give effect to the
Even tyrants and despots, not to speak of constitutional monarchs, may, if endowed with powerful and original minds, infuse fresh vigor of thought and action into a lagging world. It would be waste labor to cite historical evidence, because it is obvious that all the great rulers of
So far we have dealt with that part of the tendency to uniformity which flows from our political state; and, as we have already seen, it is the most important part, for it deals with conduct which is the greatest part of life. It remains to discuss those two portions we have described as being economic and educational, which have to deal with the æsthetical and intellectual parts of our nature, which concern art and knowledge, and are the remaining part of life.
And first as to the economic part. This part of the tendency to uniformity we have called economic because it arises from our economic or commercial state. Now, our present commercial state and method of
trading are directly inimical to the spirit | placed in the position of recipients of
of individuality. And this arises in several ways. We find one cause in the extraordinary growth of capital. One of the most remarkable things of the age is the accumulation of capital and the development of big concerns in trade and business. This accumulation of capital directly favors the creation of big concerns; and with big concerns backed up by great pecuniary resources small concerns find it hard, if not impossible, to compete. The small producer and trader almost in despair throws himself before the Juggernaut-like car of capital that goes groaning and creaking along, bearing the golden idol of Mammon, amidst the plaudits of the onlooking shareholders. Not only do we witness the creation of great companies, but also the creation of what we might call a company of companies; such as syndicates and rings. We have seen examples of these in copper and salt, and rings are threatened in coal, matches, and other things. Small industries are crushed out of existence. This is notably the case in the brewing business. There are fewer brewers now than there used to be. Then, again, what may be called home or domestic industries are fast becoming a thing of the past. Brewing was once a home industry; it has now practically ceased to be one. Even fruit-preserving is falling into the hands of "large men." The Irish lace-making industry still lingers; but it, too, bids fair to become extinct. So that, evidently, in productive industries the tendency is to do things on a large scale, and to turn out goods in great quantities, all made after the same pattern, and of the same kind. Anything more destructive of originality in production, from which alone we can hope for variety, and indeed for ultimate improvement in our commodities, it would be difficult to conceive. And so it is also in the distributive branches of trade. Great shops and stores are now on the increase. The tendency is now not for the shopkeeper to conduct his own business personally over the counter, but for some manager in a barrack-like building to command an army of shopmen, shopgirls, clerks, and cashiers, who, with an unerring monotony, receive orders and make up parcels and bills "from morn to dewy eve." But the mischief is not so great in the distributive as in the productive branches of trade, for in the former there is obviously less scope for originality. But in the latter the influence of the system that tends to prevail is deadly. Those employed in production are merely
wages for so much work done. They have no interest in the quality of the products or in the method of their production. Nor even have the managers and directors in many cases any such interest. They are placed in their position to look after the interests of shareholders, and to take care that a dividend is earned. And, so long as the dividend is earned, it is no interest of theirs to make any improvements. Indeed, they would probably look askance at any suggested improvements or novel methods, and would adopt them at their peril. It may safely be said that we owe many of our greatest improvements in the industrial arts to men who worked with their own hands, and, from the intimate knowledge of the subject which they thereby gained, acquired those flashes of insight which suggested the improvements that subsequently revolutionized the world. And this brings us to another cause closely connected with the growth of capital. This is introduction of machinery. That many benefits have flowed from the introduction of machinery it would be idle to deny. But that is no reason why we should shut our eyes to the evils of the thing. It is an evil result of the application of ma chinery to the industrial arts that it tends to destroy individuality in production. Here again the tendency is to produce great quantities of goods all of the same pattern. The producer has no interest where his labor is merely mechanical. Labor and originality are divorced, and industry is reduced to a dull routine. "Life without industry," Mr. Ruskin says, "is guilt, and industry without art is brutality." It is this "brutality" that we lament; it is the sense of this "brutality" that has given birth to the National Association for the Advancement of Art and its Application to Industry. For this is what we read in the prospectus of the association prior to the holding of its first congress: "It is widely felt in the great manufacturing centres and the feeling has found expression in Liverpool - that the present conditions both of art and industry offer many problems which stand in pressing need of discussion. Machinery, by making less immediate the contact of the artisan with the object of manufacture, and by its tendency to specialize the artisan's work, has rendered obsolete, so far as many industries are concerned, the old traditions of design, and these have not as yet been replaced by new. Machinery has, moreover, been suffered to annihilate many minor handicrafts, the
place of which has not been supplied in | les. And we refer here, not to that porany adequate fashion. The adoption, tion of education which inculcates moral therefore, of artistic design to modern teaching, or to that portion which deals methods of manufacture, and the cherish with conduct, but to that portion which ing or rehabilitation of many crafts which teaches the arts and sciences, and deals are independent of machinery, and in with the æsthetical and intellectual parts which the individuality of the workman's of our nature. That our present system touch is an essential feature, are matters of education tends to stifle individuality of high importance at the present time." and originality it would be idle to deny, What stronger testimony than this to the for we have lately had striking testimony tendency now prevailing in our industries to the fact. A short time ago there apcan any one ask for? peared a protest against the sacrifice of education to examination. And it was part of the accusation against our present system of education that it tends to stifle originality. This is what the protest says: "For it should be noted that under the prize system all education tends to be of the same type, since boys from all schools of the same grade meet in the same competition, and all teaching tends to be directed towards the winning of the same prize. No more unfortunate tendency
There are some fine lines of Mr. Lowell's which felicitously describe the feelings and the yearnings of those who reflect on our present industrial state.
Surely that wiser time shall come
In that new childhood of the Earth
Fresh blood in Time's shrunk veins make could be imagined. The health and prog
And labor meet delight half-way.
ress of every great science, such as education, depend upon continual difference, upon new ideas, and experiments carried half-out to give effect to such ideas, upon the never-ending struggle between many different forms and methods each to excel the other. It cannot be too often repeated that uniformity means arrest of growth and consequent decay; diversity means life, growth, and adaptation without limit.” The influential body of signatories to the protest state as their deliberate opinion that the present system of education is of such a nature that, if longer pursued, it will not only arrest the growth of education as a science, but will cause its ultimate decay.
That "labor shall meet delight way" is just one of the difficulties presented to us, because our present industrial methods are absolutely hostile to such a happy consummation. Beneath the incubus of an inexorable capital, whose main function it is to breed dividends, and amidst the hum and clank of machinery, there is scant prospect at present of labor meeting delight at all, much less half-way. It is to be hoped that the National Association will be able to do something to ameliorate this state of things, for surely there must be a via media somewhere. It is not that abundant benefits have not flowed from the use of capital and machinery. Let there be no mistake about that. But the benefits are largely discounted by the evils we have considered, by the stifling and deadening of "human development in its richest diversity," and by the drying up of those fertilizing streams of fresh ideas which, by stimulating progress, invigorate our civilization, and make it fruitful for good. Let us choose these streams, and divert, if possible, those other streams which now begin to flow round the roots of our existence the streams of dulness and forgetfulness, whose sluggish waters cannot fertilize, and serve only to exhaust the sources of life.
The educational part still remains. We have called it educational because it is in our educational system that this portion of the tendency of which we are speaking
A greater calamity than this could hardly happen to the nation; for, with the decay of education, we could have no hope for future generations. Then, indeed, would the sun of our glory sink forever, and a darkness to be felt settle upon us. It is not merely that the science of education itself is at fault, inasmuch as it tends itself to decay; the system has a prejudicial effect upon the minds of the taught by stifling their originality. As we are told, "boys from all schools of the same grade meet in the same competition;" the result is that they are all brought up in the same way with their minds bent on the same subject. Obviously, then, their minds, turned out from the same mould, will all bear the same impress. The result of this will be much uniformity in the minds of each generation as it grows up. Then, again, the system tends to direct the