Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

To-day love's meadows are laved in light,

But we know they slope to a far-off stream. Let us pluck the pleasures of life aright,

And garner them all for a future dreamFor the last late dream of our dreams come true, At the last late proof of our proven pledge;

When the sun that showed us our joy is gone, O Sweet! may the birds in our breasts sing on, And the blooms revive with our memories' dew, In the shadowy dusk at the River's edge.

Chambers's Journal.

J. J. Bell.

THE WORLD IN THE CHINA SHOP.

It is not the strong States that are dangerous to the peace of the world, but the weak ones, such as Spain, Turkey and China. They who had watched the prolonged failure of Spain to subdue the rebellion in Cuba realized, long before the United States declared war, that the most ancient colonial empire in the world was destined to pass to another master. The fears aroused by the intervention of the United States were due, not to doubt as to the issue of the struggle but to speculations as to whether some European Power, Germany for instance, would not appear to dispute with the victor the prize. Similarly the Turkish Empire has been for half a century a menace to the peace of Europe, for the claimants of the sick man's heritage were many. Now China has suddenly collapsed into the position of the world's invalid, and is likely to prove a more dangerous and troublesome charge than ever was the Sultan of Turkey. Not that we share the alarmist view of the Chinese question that prevails in certain quarters. The very magnitude and complexity of the difficulty that has burst upon the Western world must prevent anything like a permanent settlement or even an attempt at it, for the present. To put

an apparently contradictory proposition, the safety of the world lies in its danger. What differentiates the present Chinese crisis from its predecessors, and from similar crises in Eastern Europe, is that all the great Western Powers, including the United States and Japan, have acquired certain definite rights and interests, and consequently obligations in the Celestial Empire. But the Great Powers and Japan are not going to fight with one another over the business, for the plain and simple reason that no Power is at present prepared to take the consequences that would flow from isolated and armed action. Those consequences would not merely be war against one or more of the other Powers, but in the event of victory the administration of a large portion of the interior of China. Is there any of the interested Powers that is prepared to embark upon a policy whose failure or success would be almost equally disastrous. Is any Power ready to risk a war for the privilege of governing even a slice of China? Certainly not Russia; certainly not Japan; while the absurdity of any of the Western Powers undertaking to administer the interior of China is too obvious for argument. For the treaty

ports, the cities on the coast, the capital, that is another matter to which we shall return; but the internal government of China! The area of the Chinese Empire is computed to cover onetwelfth of the surface of the globe; it is a fourth larger than the area of the United States, and its population, which is roughly put at 350,000,000, works out at 83 persons to the square mile while France has 48 persons to the square mile and the United States 17. The leviathan tumbles about his unwieldy bulk in the ocean, and whilst "he lies floating many a rood," no one is willing to throw the first harpoon, because no one is ready to take the charge, still less the partition, of his carcase. But if no sane man dreams of governing by foreign officials, whether European or Japanese, this enormous territory, packed with the products of an arrested civilization, will no good come out of the present crisis? Will the Boxers be put down as the Taipings were put down, and things resume their former course for another half-century? We believe that good will issue from the present state of things, much good, deplorable though the loss of life and property might be in the meantime. The Powers of the world have gone too far to turn back from their task; they have set their hands to the plough, but the furrow will not be as long and as deep as some people with a defective imagination seem to suppose. The allied Powers, as they are called, though of course there is no bond but that of common interests between them, are de facto at war with China-the Chinese forts fired upon their ships-and China will have to submit to their terms. Those terms, if we mistake not, will take the shape of regularizing the control of the Powers over the central Government at Peking, and over the administration of the rivers and the

coast.

The last time that China gave seri

ous trouble to Europe was in 1856. The notices of the life of the late Lord Loch in various newspapers have recalled to the memory of the present generation the stirring events in China between 1856 and 1860, culminating in Lord Elgin's second mission, the advance of the French and English troops upon Peking, and the burning of the Summer Palace. We hope there will be no such painful incident to-day as the capture and imprisonment of Loch and Parkes with their gallant little force. But there might be; we must steel our nerves against the receipt of unpleasant news at any moment, and from any part of the Chinese Empire. As in 1860 France and England forced China to accept the presence of their ambassadors at Peking, so in 1900 the allied Powers, with greater force to back their demands, and with far wider and more definite interests to protect, will compel "the insolent barbarian" to swallow a much larger dose of international control. They must indeed do so for their own protection, for all are agreed that the risk of a repetition of the present outbreak would be intolerable. To give, even roughly, the details of any scheme of international control would be a futile and presumptuous attempt. The scheme will probably occupy the attention of all the Powers for some months to come, and will tax to the utmost the patience and ingenuity of their most experienced diplomatists. It may, however, be assumed, without any pretentions to a revelation, that the Dowager Empress will disappear as a factor in Chinese politics, and that a fairly large composite force will be stationed for some time in and around Peking and at the mouth of the river. It may be argued that any system of joint international control is doomed to failure, that a condominium never works, as the case of England and France in Egypt proves. We agree that a dual control

is dangerous, for one or the other Power must, in the long run, be master. But there are cases when there is safety in a multiplicity of counsellors, and we think China is one of them. There are not the same objections to a quintuple as to a dual control, for amongst six Great Powers like Great Britain, Russia, Japan, France, Germany and the United States, to say nothing of subsidiary interests, such as those of Italy and Austria, there will be a public opinion which cannot but act as a restraint upon the unscrupulous or unruly member. One cause of apprehension at all events has been removed. By the correctness and moderation of her attitude Japan has proved her right to be admitted to the councils and the confidence of the Western Powers.

The points which we wish to emphasize in our view of the situation are these: that there cannot be from the nature of the circumstances, any radical and permanent settlement of the Chinese question at the present time; that the Powers must proceed tentatively and by small steps; and that, therefore, the politics of Peking will, for the immediate future, take the place of the Eastern Question in Europe as a source of interest and anxiety. There will, of course, be intrigues and rumors The Saturday Review.

of war, but-and this is the second point we wish to make-we do not see any danger of a near rupture between any of the Powers concerned. This latter judgment is based upon the hypothesis that an enlightened sense of selfinterest is applied by all the powers to the problem before them. We think the hypothesis is warranted, because we do not remember a time when the policy of the European Powers was guided with a greater amount of common sense. The German Emperor is, in our eyes, one of the wisest and safest statesmen in Europe. Contrary to the opinion of many, we believe in the pacific principles of the Tsar of Russia, and in his power to enforce his views upon his ministers. Even if we are credulous on this point, those ministers are far too shrewd to assume the burthen at present of administering even the northern part of China. With regard to France, we are bound to say that M. Delcassé has steered the foreign policy of his country in trying times, and under some provocation, with great tact and self-restraint. Japan is on her good behavior and will not disobey the other Powers, while the United States are certainly not going to fight for or with anybody.

THE TWO KINDS OF CRITICISM.

An American writer in the columns of the Chicago Dial has lately put in a plea for the revival of the good old slashing literary criticism, for the use of the cudgel and the bludgeon which Macaulay wielded against Croker and Robert Montgomery. We are living, he says, in an age of soothing-syrup, when fourth-rate works are "boomed" into temporary notoriety, and when no

body dare say what he really thinks about the book of a writer whom, perhaps, he will meet at the club. We need a healthy revival, this writer contends, of the old and harder school of criticism, which shall put the public on its guard against inferior works, and especially against pretentious works, which now secure an extensive sale before their real character is

elements in Shakespeare or Milton that he thought bad, he would say so even were all the world in arms against him. The transcendent value of sincere individual judgment was to him the most important fact in the world. True, he looked askance in religion and politics on the right of private judgment, and the securus judicat orbis terrarum which rang in the ears of Newman affected Johnson to an unusual degree. But when he could fling off the weight of established institutions and make free incursions into the Republic of Literature, Johnson was no man's slave; his judgments were independent, his love of truth dominated his whole being. He trembled before George III, he thought it a transcendant honor "to dine with the canons of Christ-church;" but when it came to pronouncing a literary judgment, this hide-bound old Tory stood upon his feet and became a man. No writer in England since his time, save Macaulay, has so effectively played the part of an honest and determined censor of everything which he conceived to be weak or worthless. He was the great "hanging Judge" of our literary Tribunal.

known. And now some enterprising person has enforced this advice by reprinting Dr. Johnson's "Short Strictures on the Plays of Shakespeare," originally published in 1765, in which the Great Cham of literature, in his sturdy English way, did not hesitate to say in a few brief, sinewy phrases what he thought of Shakespeare, not hesitating to blend condemnation with eulogy whenever he thought the occasion required it. Some of these judgments are amusing. Dr. Johnson thought, e.g., in common with newer Shakespearian lights, that "Love's Labor Lost" is characteristic of Shakespeare, and yet that there are vulgar passages in it which ought never to have been told to a maiden lady like Queen Elizabeth. He finds that the "Winter's Tale" is full of "absurdities" (we suppose the allusion is to the Bohemian coast), but yet "very entertaining;" that "Two Gentlemen of Verona" exhibits strange mixture of knowledge and ignorance, of care and negligence;" that "All's Well that Ends Well" is not "produced by any deep knowledge of human nature;" that "Richard III" contains "some parts that are trifling, others shocking and some improbable;" that Cordelia's death is contrary to the natural ideas of justice; and that "Julius Cæsar" is "somewhat cold and unaffecting." In a word, Shakespeare is handled by Johnson with as little ceremony as he treated Goldsmith to in a conversation with Boswell.

"8

Johnson acted consistently all his life through on his own immortal maxim, "Clear your mind of cant." Prejudiced and narrow he was, nor was he, in our sense of the term, highly cultivated. His judgment was constantly at fault, he attributed to third-rate authors of his time merits that no mortal being can perceive in them, while he was blind to the glories of "Lycidas." But no man ever lived who worshipped so sincerely at the shrine of truth; and if there were

The criticism of our own time has adopted a quite opposite note, derived, we think, largely from Sainte-Beuve, who profoundly influenced the first of our contemporary critics, Matthew Arnold. It was the principle of Sainte-Beuve, as it is generally of modern French criticism, to discover positive merit and definite formative ideas rather than to denounce or condemn. This is, of course, the criticism of fine intelligence, like that of Goethe, which has no moral partizanship, no partial view, but which approaches its theme, partly as a problem to be solved, partly as the expression of an idea to be sympathetically understood. Johnson and his school have their point of view, to which the writer under consideration must be assimilated, to whose leading maxims he

« ZurückWeiter »