Слике страница
PDF
ePub

and heretics" of philosophy, who come forward with no fixed standpoint, and profess no definite theory, certainly has its place in this direction. Like Descartes, these philosophical anarchists doubt everything in order to believe something. Such a neo-Cartesianism is wanted today towards all our accepted views and theories. It is wanted, not because in itself it is to be taken seriously as establishing a new school of thought, but because its very unconventionality will stir fresh developments in other minds. If such influences extend to theological studies so much the better. We shall start afresh, with the freedom the past has gained for the right of research, to make better use of that freedom in the future.

Side by side with this it is necessary to emphasize the importance of research work, the work of the excavator and explorer in Biblical countries, of the anthropologist amongst primitive people, of those whose task lies in the fields of the comparative study of religions, ethics, and religious psychology, where the laborers still are few. To encourage direct research is better than to beget critics of the theories of others. As has already been suggested, it is upon these lines rather than upon those of purely literary criticism that the best promise of the future will be fulfilled. Work in all these spheres is comparatively new, but the early results have been exceedingly fruitful. The discoveries among the papyri of Egypt, known and yet neglected for a century in favor of literary criticism, have wholly changed our standpoint regarding the language of the New Testament. Yet these papyri are only as yet collated in part. Work like that of Sir W. Ramsay in Asia Minor has afforded new light, which, in more than one respect, has shown the unsubstantiality of the favorite hypotheses of our erstwhile

LIVING AGE, VOL. VIII, No. 379.

German mentors. It will be recollected that at the beginning of the present century French excavation on the site of Susa discovered a copy of the laws of Hammurabi. The importance of that discovery to Old Testament criticism can scarcely be exaggerated. For one thing, it has certainly dispelled the conclusion, I gained from the theories of the literary critics, that the Mosaic Code should be dated as posterior to the first great prophets; a fact which not unnaturally somewhat shakes the faith that was once placed in the acumen of these scholars. In saying this, it must be repeated that there is no need to dispute the place, or depreciate the value of the work of literary criticism. It is mentioned merely to show that it is possible to push literary criticism too far, and that German scholarship led the way in making that mistake. The opportunity now occurs to apply the corrective, and, one might also add, to interpret things of the East in a less Occidental manner; for it can scarcely be denied that the Western mode of thought and point of view have been far too apparent for a correct appreciation of Eastern religion, a defect which the over-theoretical character of studies, carried out solely within the narrow courts of German provincial universities, fostered greatly. Possibly in days to come, when a new generation of Christianity arises again in the East, we of the West shall need to sit at their feet, to learn much that from our Western standpoint we cannot see in the faith whose star arose in the East.

As soon as our students in arms return, and our colleges and universities restart, we shall begin that new period, when, apart from German influences so potent in the past, we shall utilize our own methods and guide our own destinies. Criticism of the old methods and search for fresh

will have nothing to do with them. Mr. Norman Angell, seeing how little influenced were the nations by his peace theories in his first publication, renewed his efforts in the same direction by bringing out another book in which he adumbrated fresh arguments from a new viewpoint and laid much store by the argument of the economic interdependence of nations. But the Great Illusion proved only a great illusion and what better proof is needed to elucidate this fact than the present war-"a long prepared scheme of overwhelming aggression" for world power. Whoever calculated four years ago upon the infatuation of the Kaiser and the intoxication of the Germans with their ideas of divine right to rule the world and to launch half the nations of the world into war? So long as erroneous notions which are inherent in human nature are suffered to hold, wars must continue. The important lesson therefore which this war more than any of the previous wars has brought to prominence and which all, let alone visionaries and idealists, must lay to heart is that wars are inevitable and that nations, unless they are bound by a worldfederation, to which we will presently advert, must ever be prepared to do battle for liberty and freedom or the maintenance of rights violated.

But the lesson which is drawn from this war is not complete unless it is recognized at the same time that nowadays wars break out with alarming suddenness and hostilities often begin before war is declared. Man has come to be a feature of the modern warfare, for it is believed and rightly believed that success lies in an offensive against the enemy unawares. Of course there is no morality in running away with your clothes while you are bathing, but wars, experience has shown, steer clear of "moral shibboleths" as they are called. The

circumspection with which the disintegrate Balkan States had forged themselves into a confederation to pounce upon Turkey is a case in point. The Allies concealed their intention of a premeditated offensive on the Turks until the last moment and the unsuspecting Turks, it would appear, had actually discharged a large number of soldiers from the Active list to the Reserve a short time before the declaration of hostilities. After maturing in profound secrecy their plans as to the season for attack, the distribution of troops and all the details of the campaign, the Allies began their attack and the result was, as calculated upon by them, a victory. It was the Bismarckian method and policy which the Bulgars had copied and won by and it is still to the same policy that the Germans today have pinned their faith. No one, however, who has any regard for truth will for а moment aver that the present struggle between England or the Allies and Germany was flung as a surprise upon an unsuspecting world and that the German preparations carried on a gigantic scale for years beforehand for a long-drawn war were misjudged of their purpose. Says Mr. William Archer, "Many of us have foreseen that there must come a struggle between the democratic and the militarist-despotic ideals of worldorganization, but we scarcely foresaw that the crisis would come to a head in our own time. It has been precipitated by the calamitous superaddition of the personal egomania of William II to the national intoxication begotten of the Bismarckian triumphs of blood and iron." The German precipitation, therefore, consists in the English unpreparedness for a fight of the magnitude of the present war. The policy pursued in the three wars which created the German Empire, the policy imitated by the Allies in the

proportionate accumulation in armaments. When reigning monarchs and responsible statesmen express so ardent and anxious a desire for peace, how comes it then that these self-same estimable peace-lovers not only evince but give a practical turn to an equally strong anxiety not to be outrun in the race for armament-piling? And strange as it may seem it is these peace-conferences that have given the elan to the armament-race, for since the first peace-conference at Hague there has been a rapid and overwhelming increase of armaments in nearly every autonomous country in the west, and with it a corresponding change of the popular mind. In short an era of armed peace was ushered in. It should not however be forgotten that the principle underlying this lifeless organization was most commendable and that if the decisions of those who were sincere in their desire for peace could not influence the opinion of the others, it was because the organization lacked authority. Diplomatist and military and naval experts played with it endeavoring to wring from it concessions favorable to their prearranged ideas of waging war, and it had no police or other forces to bring the delinquents to book or enforce peace otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that when self-interest is at stake or rules in a nation, sacred pledges and solemn engagements go to winds and the issues of the nation's destiny are committed to war. It cannot be gainsaid that national self-interest takes precedence of all other considerations. Has not England set all international law and morality at defiance when its existence was at stake during the great French War? How were the South African and the Russo-Japanese wars brought about? The Balkan war has exploded the peace theory advanced by Mr. Nor

man Angell and others that wars would not be resorted to as hitherto, for settlement of international disputes. That Governments and people are no longer actuated by motives of self-interest and aggrandizement and that justice and common sense and unselfishness are now the prime factors which govern the actions of the powers, the one towards the other, are all theories that were accepted before the commencement of the above war. For a time all eyes in the Christian world were riveted in admiration on the Allies joining issues in a common cause to fight a common foe, namely the Turk, and to free the Christian world from the yoke of the Turk. The sacrifices each state made for the collective good pointed to the spirit of brotherhood which reigned among them. The victories of the Allies were watched and followed with great interest and concern, and the final triumph or the vindication of the liberty of the Christian people in Turkey, as it was called, was received with jubilation by the public in England. But the tale is not all told. The disillusionment did not take long to come and so much heroism had so sordid an ending. The Allies soon found themselves in internecine conflict, with the result that Bulgaria had lost all she had gained.

Thus

human nature reasserted itself and self-interest made itself conspicuous and prevailed; jealousy, greed, avarice and all the concomitants in the train of materialism, the idol of the west, showed what hold they had on the votaries of their mistress. In the face of these instances, is it not futile to try to maintain that men and nations have ceased to be actuated by considerations of self-interest? The idealist and the pacifist may cry themselves hoarse and build their castles of vision, but those who are engaged in the practical affairs of the world

will have nothing to do with them. Mr. Norman Angell, seeing how little influenced were the nations by his peace theories in his first publication, renewed his efforts in the same direction by bringing out another book in which he adumbrated fresh arguments from a new viewpoint and laid much store by the argument of the economic interdependence of nations. But the Great Illusion proved only a great illusion and what better proof is needed to elucidate this fact than the present war “a long prepared scheme of overwhelming aggression" for world power. Whoever calculated four years ago upon the infatuation of the Kaiser and the intoxication of the Germans with their ideas of divine right to rule the world and to launch half the nations of the world into war? So long as erroneous notions which are inherent in human nature are suffered to hold, wars must continue. The important lesson therefore which this war more than any of the previous wars has brought to prominence and which all, let alone visionaries and idealists, must lay to heart is that wars are inevitable and that nations, unless they are bound by a worldfederation, to which we will presently advert, must ever be prepared to do battle for liberty and freedom or the maintenance of rights violated.

But the lesson which is drawn from this war is not complete unless it is recognized at the same time that nowadays wars break out with alarming suddenness and hostilities often begin before war is declared. Man has come to be a feature of the modern warfare, for it is believed and rightly believed that success lies in an offensive against the enemy unawares. Of course there is no morality in running away with your clothes while you are bathing, but wars, experience has shown, steer clear of "moral shibboleths" as they are called. The

circumspection with which the disintegrate Balkan States had forged themselves into a confederation to pounce upon Turkey is a case in point. The Allies concealed their intention of a premeditated offensive on the Turks until the last moment and the unsuspecting Turks, it would appear, had actually discharged a large number of soldiers from the Active list to the Reserve a short time before the declaration of hostilities. After maturing in profound secrecy their plans as to the season for attack, the distribution of troops and all the details of the campaign, the Allies began their attack and the result was, as calculated upon by them, a victory. It was the Bismarckian method and policy which the Bulgars had copied and won by and it is still to the same policy that the Germans today have pinned their faith. No one, however, who has any regard for truth will for а moment aver that the present struggle between England or the Allies and Germany was flung as a surprise upon an unsuspecting world and that the German preparations carried on a gigantic scale for years beforehand for a long-drawn war were misjudged of their purpose. Says Mr. William Archer, "Many of us have foreseen that there must come a struggle between the democratic and the militarist-despotic ideals of worldorganization, but we scarcely foresaw that the crisis would come to a head in our own time. It has been precipitated by the calamitous superaddition of the personal egomania of William II to the national intoxication begotten of the Bismarckian triumphs of blood and iron." The German precipitation, therefore, consists in the English unpreparedness for a fight of the magnitude of the present war. The policy pursued in the three wars which created the German Empire, the policy imitated by the Allies in the

Balkan war had not opened the eyes of the English and set them a-thinking in time. The fact is that the English are traditionally slow to take a warning or profit from experience either at home or abroad.

The supreme lesson therefore which this war has for England is that it should recognize the inevitability of war and the necessity for preparedness for war as long as she desires to keep the British Empire intact, in other words she should maintain a strong imperial force not only capable of offensive and defensive but of carrying all before it when it may be called upon to do so. Such a condition is necessary as well for victory in the event of war as for securing and enforcing peace when it is threatened. The weak always invite attack; and the strong always give the attacking pause, thus making for establishment or continuance of peace. But to secure peace to the world of an abiding nature, as has already been indicated above, the present conditions of international polity must change. Altogether a different, fairer world must dawn, "but above all, it must represent a common order, imposed by the powers, small and great, in council and able by the advice of the best men and the best women of our time to set up a permanent seat of international justice, with just enough force and no more to make its decrees respected and to come down on offenders." This is a solution which has farreaching results of a most salutary kind; nay, in fact the only certain road to an era of peace not "armed" as it was but pure and simple, as is to be wished for, and it is implied of course that national autonomy-already nearly achieved in Ireland and Poland, and destined to be won by India before long-is the sine qua non of Government of all States big and small. This is indeed the surest

solution whose prime difficulty has hitherto been the inequality of forms of Government, in various parts of the world and we commend it especially to England which being destined to continue to be of an empire "on which the sun never sets" should remove these difficulties in her own empire and bring about a federal basis to rest the Empire on.

If this idea, however, does not appeal to England or to the great English nation, then the only alternative before her, and it is only the next best, is that she should maintain a strong and sound national defense organized on a scale commensurate with the extent of the Empire. And sound and strong national defense means adequate numbers and adequate training, and it means neither more nor less. The British Empire covers 8,000,000 square miles and the land frontier extends to 28,000. And it is for England to say whether there is not much in it that is worth keeping. If all the emphasis is to be laid on the safety of the heart of the empire or even only certain parts of the body, what about the safety and security of the rest of the limbs of the Empire? Can a few be cared for at the expense of the others? It is quite true that if the heart of the empire is not safe, the limbs will not, for want of circulation, but if the limbs are dismembered or severed, will the safety of the heart alone compensate for their loss and the living organism get on? There is therefore no point in insisting that only certain parts of the Empire should be capable of bearing arms and the others should remain disarmed. The safety of the empire is in the hands of every one of its citizens and the burden of safeguarding it is a duty which all should share alike and none should be denied that responsibility. The safety of the Empire is ensured

« ПретходнаНастави »