Men in Blazers present encyclopedia

blazertannica a suboptimal guide to

soccer America s sport of the future
since 1972 First Edition Bennett
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/men-in-blazers-present-encyclopedia-blazertannica-a
-suboptimal-guide-to-soccer-america-s-sport-of-the-future-since-1972-first-edition-ben
nett/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Soccer men profiles of the rogues geniuses and

neurotics who dominate the world s most popular sport
Kuper

https://textbookfull.com/product/soccer-men-profiles-of-the-
rogues-geniuses-and-neurotics-who-dominate-the-world-s-most-
popular-sport-kuper/

A Kids Guide to America s First Ladies Divito

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-kids-guide-to-america-s-first-
ladies-divito/

Progressivism in America : past, present and future 1st

Edition David B. Woolner

https://textbookfull.com/product/progressivism-in-america-past-
present-and-future-1st-edition-david-b-woolner/

History of Modern Latin America 1800 to the Present

Teresa A. Meade

https://textbookfull.com/product/history-of-modern-latin-
america-1800-to-the-present-teresa-a-meade/
A history of modern Latin America 1800 to the present
Second Edition Meade

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-history-of-modern-latin-
america-1800-to-the-present-second-edition-meade/

Storey s Guide to Raising Rabbits Fifth Edition.

Edition Bob Bennett

https://textbookfull.com/product/storey-s-guide-to-raising-
rabbits-fifth-edition-edition-bob-bennett/

Constitutionalism : past, present, and future First

Edition Grimm

https://textbookfull.com/product/constitutionalism-past-present-
and-future-first-edition-grimm/

Rethinking Sport and Exercise Psychology Research:

Past, Present and Future 1st Edition Peter Hassmén

https://textbookfull.com/product/rethinking-sport-and-exercise-
psychology-research-past-present-and-future-1st-edition-peter-
hassmen/

Super Mario Encyclopedia The Official Guide to the

First 30 Years 1st Edition Nintendo

https://textbookfull.com/product/super-mario-encyclopedia-the-
official-guide-to-the-first-30-years-1st-edition-nintendo/
ALSO BY ROGER BENNETT AND MICHAEL DAVIES

How the United States Can Win the 2006 World Cup
Bavarian for the Modern Business Traveler
Puffin Breeding Today
Self-Loathing and How to Live with That Curse
John Terry: Symbol of Our Times or Misunderstood?
Tony Hibbert: Modern Day Jesus
THIS IS A BORZOI BOOK
PUBLISHED BY ALFRED A. KNOPF

Copyright © 2018 by Roger Bennett and Michael Davies

All rights reserved. Published in the United States by Alfred A. Knopf, a division of
Penguin Random House LLC, New York, and in Canada by Random House of
Canada, a division of Penguin Random House Canada Limited, Toronto.

www.aaknopf.com

Knopf, Borzoi Books, and the colophon are registered trademarks of Penguin
Random House LLC.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Bennett, Roger, [date] author. | Davies, Michael, [date] author.

Title: Men in blazers present encyclopedia blazertannica : a suboptimal guide to

soccer, America’s “sport of the future” since 1972 / by Roger Bennett, Michael
Davies.

Description: First edition. | New York : Alfred A. Knopf, 2018.

Identifiers: LCCN 2017028596 | ISBN 9781101875988 (hardcover) |

ISBN 9781101875995 (ebook)

Ebook ISBN 9781101875995

Subjects: LCSH: Soccer--Miscellanea. | Soccer--Anecdotes. | Soccer--Humor. |

BISAC: SPORTS & RECREATION / Soccer. | HUMOR / Topic / Sports. | SPORTS &
RECREATION / History.

Classification: LCC GV943.2 .B44 2018 | DDC 796.352--dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/​2017028596

Cover design by Peter Mendelsund

v5.2_r2
a
ROG: To my wife, Vanessa, my kids, Samson, Ber, Zion, and Oz, and Everton
Football Club. Aka the things in life that allow me to experience human
emotions I am otherwise sadly numb to.
DAVO: To all my greatest mates, you know who you are, in life, love, TV, and
sport. To my kids. And to my mum and Roman Abramovich. I owe you both
so much.
ROG AND DAVO: To all our Great Friends of the Pod…Kung Fu Fighting
America!
 EDDY: The entire British Empire was built on cups of tea…
SOAP: Yeah, and look what happened to that.
EDDY:…And if you think I’m going to war without one, mate, you’re
mistaken.
—Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
 CONTENTS
Cover
Also by Roger Bennett and Michael Davies
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Epigraph
Introduction

Chapter A
Chapter B
Chapter C
Chapter D
Chapter E
Chapter F
Chapter G
Chapter H
Chapter I
Chapter J
Chapter K
Chapter L
Chapter M
Chapter N
Chapter O
Chapter P
Chapter Q
Chapter R
 Chapter S
Chapter T
Chapter U
Chapter V
Chapter W
Chapter X
Chapter Y
Chapter Z
Acknowledgments
Illustration Credits
A Note About the Authors
 Introduction
Hail! Unfortunate Accidental Readers and Great Friends of the Pod.
The volume you have in your hands was designed to be many things:
1. The final nail in the coffin of the long-floundering publishing industry.
2. Living proof that it is possible to write a worse book than Does God
Love Michael’s Two Daddies? by Sheila K. Butt.
3. An ill-advised attempt to journey into the inky dark, unexplored depths
of the Men in Blazers universe, every detail of which we have created
hand in hand with our masochistically loyal listeners over the past eight
years, pod by pod, show by show, tweet by suboptimal tweet.
To achieve the first two objectives, we chose to focus solely on the third.
This task demanded we wallow in the history and culture of football, the
sport we both love. With its pantheon of heroes and villains, moments of
glorious ecstasy and searing despair, dodgy haircuts and surplus neck tattoos,
it has empowered us to experience emotions other people seem to feel in real
life, to which we are both inured. No telenovela could provide soapier story
lines to keep us hooked like football…a game with plot points that unfurl live
without a safety net, as the whole world watches.

—
Witnessing the game we love grow and grow in America, the nation that we
love, has been the thrill of our lifetimes. We both arrived on these shores as
innocents, equipped with full heads of our own hair, in the early 1990s. Back
then soccer had seemingly forever been cast as America’s “Sport of the
Future,” its recent past little more than a collection of false dawns and
hyperbolic predictions that it was about to become the Next Big Thing.
We well remember the day when FIFA announced its intention to host the
1994 World Cup in the US, prompting panicked former-AFL-quarterback-
turned-US-representative Jack Kemp to declare on the floor of Congress: “I
think it is important for all those young men out there who someday hope to
play real football where you throw it and kick it and run with it and put it in
your hands a distinction should be made that football is democratic capitalism
whereas soccer is a European socialist sport.”
Yet, slow and steady wins the race. We have watched with wonder, World
Cup to World Cup, as the game’s profile has inexorably risen to the point that
the sport’s profile has taken its place alongside seersucker, cheesesteaks, and
the collected works of Raymond Carver as a symbol of American freedom
and democracy.
Indeed, our obsessive love of football and Men in Blazers’ very existence
has been possible only because it was powered and reinforced by that surging
rise of interest, as well as by the fact that you allow bald men on television in
the United States.
The question is often asked as to why, season to season, week to week,
game to game, more and more Americans have fallen under football’s poetic
sway. Many theories have been advanced. Just as baseball thrived in “the
Golden Age of Radio,” and the NFL was the perfect televisual sport, soccer’s
rise has been driven by the Internet in general, and EA Sports FIFA in
particular, which have enabled fans in Los Angeles or North Dakota to
experience and follow their teams as closely as supporters in Leicester or
Newcastle.
Also, alcohol. If a gent is in a bar drinking a beer at 7:30 in the morning,
society deems him to be an alcoholic. If Liverpool are losing to Bournemouth
on a television in that very same bar whilst that aforementioned beer is being
quaffed, we consider that man an American soccer fan. If we have learned
only one thing during our beer-stained Men in Blazers odyssey it is this: Never
underestimate the extent to which Americans adore an excuse to drink during
the daytime.
 Ultimately, we like to believe football’s American boom has been made
possible by a realization that sporting audiences here have made en masse—
that when they experience soccer, they might not be watching home runs, end
zone dances, or tomahawk dunks. They are glimpsing life itself unfold before
their eyes. The legendary Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger once articulated
this best when he said, “Football is like real life but in a more condensed way,
more intense. At some moments it catches you suddenly and it can be very
cruel.”
As two men, we could not be more different. One of us is an optimistic
Londoner who believes everything is possible. The other, a negative
Liverpudlian who sees Cossacks lurking behind every door. Yet we are
bonded by a mutual understanding that soccer in all of its forms—men’s or
women’s, international or club—as long as it is played by bipeds, is the key to
understanding human existence. As George Eliot once said:
Art is the nearest thing to life; it is a mode of amplifying
experience and extending our contact with our fellow-men
beyond the bounds of our personal lot.
If you substitute the word “football” for “art” here, it could not be better
said. This book, then, is for readers who believe that, or would like to. Fans
old or new, young or old, deeply knowledgeable or neophyte. An
encyclopedic collection assembled at great loss of life, of the greatest games,
most legendary characters, soaring moments, salty chants, and the occasional
self-indulgent yet critical detour, that make up everything you need to know
about the game. Reading this cover to cover might not improve the way you
play the sport, but it will, we hope, make you better human beings, which is
arguably, almost as important.
Courage.
Rog and Davo
Roger Bennett

Michael Davies
New York City
May 2018
P.S. The thing we are most proud of about this book are the entries shifting
from Beckenbauer to Beckerman to Beckham, thus accidentally though
correctly placing the great Kyle Beckerman in the pantheon where he
belongs.
 A
Accents: I have lived in the United States for over half my life. The
experience has shaped the way I think, view the world, and drive my
automobile. One thing it has not come close to changing is my accent. My
wife has always joked that I clung on to my English accent because it is my
only asset. Truth is, it is a liability rather than an asset. Fifty-seven percent of
my interactions with random shopkeepers or bank tellers involve them being
unable to resist uncorking their own English phrases in marbly-mouthed Dick
Van Dyke–esque accents:
“Fancy a cup of tea, luv?”
“Fish ’n’ chips!”
“David Beck-ham.”
“Jus’ let me sweep ya chimnee.”
Yet, I have nothing to counter with. I can’t even do a vague American
impression. On the eve of my fortieth birthday, as I took stock of my life and
the seventeen years I had spent in the United States, I attempted to list the
phrases I could say like a true American:
“Hot Dawg”
“A million bucks!”
“The whole enchilada”
“Hooray for Hollywood!”
“Soccah”
“Ful-HAM Football Club”
“F*%k You, Pal”
 Brad Evans, player for the USMNT and Seattle Sounders, challenged us
over Twitter to do an entire episode in fake American accents, wondering if
anyone would still watch the show if that was the case. The question touched
a nerve in the American soccer-loving community—why are so many
English-accented broadcasters immediately afforded respect based solely on
their accents? As it turned out, NBC’s research division delved into our
ratings and discovered that the people who adore Men in Blazers are not even
soccer lovers. They are bald fetishists who couldn’t give a crap about our
accents or our mediocre soccer expertise. —RB
Achilles Feet: A symbolic medical predicament ascribed by John Oliver to
any player like former Liverpool legend Jamie Carragher who appears low on
skill, high on passion.
Adidas: My relationship with Adidas dates from 1974. It was formed not by
football but by my love of tennis and particularly a balding, mustachioed,
comb-overing, gangly, but oh so elegant tennis player from Southern
California—Stan Smith. The man whose face and name is emblazoned on the
coolest and most understated, pure sneaker slash tennis shoe of all time.

Stan Smith before he was a sneaker

 I liked everything about Stan Smith’s game—the rhythm of his serve, his
catlike movement, the effortless power of his crisp volley. But mostly, I was
obsessed with Stan Smith’s shiny white and green shoes. Stan Smiths replaced
my Dunlop Green flash, my department store brand tracksuit was upgraded to
a slick gray meets blue that Adidas called “Petrol,” with three navy blue
stripes on the sides of the arms and legs and a scarlet trefoil on the chest. I
have never owned any sportswear which I have worn with more pride. —MD
Allardyce, Sam:

A walking morality tale as a man who spent his life dreaming of becoming
England manager only to be forced to resign within sixty-seven days after
advising undercover reporters on how to break the laws of the game in return
for lucrative kickbacks. His rise and fall are even more remarkable when you
consider his body consists of 73 percent ham products and resembles the
bastard offspring that would result if a hippopotamus made love with a steak
and kidney pie.
American Television and Soccer: In 1990, I spent one of the greatest
summers of my life as a counselor at a sleepaway camp in Maine. For those
of you who went to camp, I was the requisite creepy English counselor with
cut-off denim shorts who spent eight glorious weeks savoring the American
summer camp traditions of lanyards, Devil Dogs, and wedgies. But my
overriding memory was my first encounter with America’s cruel indifference
to the sport I loved. This was the World Cup in which English football
momentarily shed its hooligan brand on a march into the semifinals which had
stoked England’s hyperbolic tabloid media to jingoistic fever pitch. The day
of the semifinal against West Germany was one of the most frustrating of my
life. I spent an afternoon driving frantically from one sleepy rural bar to
another. All were broadcasting the local Portland minor league baseball
game. Not one was able to direct their massive satellite dishes toward a signal
that could pull in the World Cup semifinal. In the pre-Internet age I had to
wait for the next day’s Boston Globe to discover the bitter result. England
predictably lost on penalty kicks. Perhaps it was for the best. —RB
Argentina: Not to go all Paul Krugman on you, but one of the most admirable
things about Argentina’s consistency as a world footballing power is that
while Germany, Brazil, and Italy all rank among the world’s ten biggest
economies (and between them, they’ve won 13 of the 20 World Cups)
Argentina is the economic outlier. The team that defies the correlation
between a nation’s GDP and their ability to win the big one.
Stylistically, Argentine football has patented a long tradition of violent
beauty. Their fans crave both the Gambetta, a slaloming style of dribbling run
described by the poet Eduardo Galeano as strumming “the ball as if it was a
guitar,” alongside a cunning guile and physicality that is known as La Nuestra,
or “our style of play.” Thus, Argentine players are able to undo opponents
with clinical pace, or by pinging the ball around their box, but if a groin or
kidney presented itself for a good punching along the way, they could be
easily persuaded to give it a thunderous jab. Thus their great team of the
1950s were known as the “Angels with Dirty Faces.”
This is a team who will stop at nothing to win, stooping even to handing
opponents spiked water bottles during breaks to drug them in game. When
England finally worked out how to beat them in 2002, thanks to a penalty
won by a flopping from Michael Owen, the Argentine media merely nodded
their approval at his deceit and willingness to cheat to win. “THEY’VE
LEARNED!” was one headline.
Yet, Argentina have always been far more than Al Davis–era Oakland
Raiders. Their team always had to be both admired and feared due to their
production line of visionary, creative playmakers, El Diez, “The Ten”: Juan
Román Riquelme, and now Lionel Messi. Victory leads to sainthood. Lose,
and it is all their fault.
As mighty as they have been in the past, Los Albicelestes have gone over
two decades without winning a trophy. Dakota Fanning was not yet born
when they lifted the 1993 Copa America. Their teams have been talent-
stocked, yet their biggest problem was how to get the best out of Lionel
Messi. As revered as he was, Argentines remained suspicious of the man who
moved to Barcelona aged fourteen, viewing him as a foreigner, El Catalán,
who never shone in an Argentine jersey and even retired briefly from
international football with tears in his eyes after misfiring in a doomed
penalty shootout loss after 2016’s Copa America Centenario final.
Despite their ongoing agony, the Argentinians find reason for optimism.
The pope, Francis, was born in Buenos Aires and is football mad. Their fans
draw solace from his support. “If one Argentine can do what he does,” they
say, “just imagine what twenty-three can do.”
Arsenally:

To dig a massive hole, raise your fans’ hopes by almost climbing out of it,
only to fail at the last minute. See their 2015 Champions League round of 16
exit to Monaco in which they slumped to a humiliating 3–1 home defeat in
the first leg, then against the odds took a 2–0 lead in France but could not net
a third and were eliminated on away goals.
This kind of noble defeat is possibly the most painful kind. It is also
incredibly French. In 1863, the Foreign Legion cemented its romantic legend
during the Defense of Camarón, where sixty-five legionnaires held 2,000
Mexican soldiers at bay until they ran out of ammunition. With six men
remaining and not a bullet between then, the legionnaires swore to fight to the
death, fixed bayonets, and attempted a futile charge. The wooden prosthetic
hand of the deceased leader of the action, Capitaine Jean Danjou, was
recovered, and every year it is solemnly sent out on parade, a reminder of his
death, the nobility of defeat, and the Legion’s motto, “March or Die!” This is
French glory. Understand it, and you will appreciate the essence of everything
that is Arsenally. A way of life in which stoic dignity in defeat is always
preferred to a pragmatically won trophy.
Aston Villa:

The most pleather, beige, vanilla team in English football. A once proud team
who won the European Cup—the Champions League predecessor—in 1982,
beating Bayern in the final, bought to their knees by American owner Randy
Lerner, who essentially turned them into English football’s version of his
former NFL franchise, the Cleveland Browns, before selling them on.
For new American fans, believing Aston Villa was once a European power
is as hard to believe as learning Tara Reid was once a highly desirable
Hollywood starlet. Despite their modern-day descent into mediocrity, the club
still boast a glut of celebrity fans—Princes Edward and William, Duran
Duran’s Simon Le Bon, former Conservative prime minister David Cameron,
Tom Hanks, Ozzy Osbourne, and the late Fred Perry. It always amazes me
Davo does not support them, as this is, coincidentally, a list of his male
heroes.
 B
Baker, Gerry: Gerry Baker was one of our favorite interviews ever. The
seventy-three-year-old former US international was the first American ever to
score a hat trick in top-flight English soccer.
We were introduced to Gerry in February 2012, after Clint Dempsey, then
playing for Fulham, smashed three goals past Newcastle. The British
newspapers heralded this as the first American hat trick in the English top
flight. Many of our listeners pointed out that a striker named Baker had
actually done so fifty-one years earlier. We went to the record books and
found the outline of the story—Baker had been born in New Rochelle, New
York, to English parents who returned home to Britain ahead of the Second
World War. We immediately put out an APB over Twitter and, thanks to a
slew of GFOPs, tracked Gerry down in Scotland, where we found him, still
eager to talk about his career in which he had starred as a “compact striker
with the grace of a gazelle” plying his trade for St. Mirren, Manchester City,
Ipswich Town, Coventry City, and ultimately the United States during the
doomed qualification process for World Cup 1970.
 Gerry Baker: a lost gem of US soccer history

Our conversation began with us asking the retired pro how many hat tricks
he had netted in English football. “So many I have lost count,” Baker
chuckled. “That was my job. Scoring goals was what I was paid to do.” Gerry
talked with excitement about the experiences he had after being called up for
the US out of the blue. Most of his teammates had been born in Hungary or
Germany and now played on semipro clubs dotted around New York and St.
Louis. Despite the fact the US team played before crowds of 4,000, which
was much less than the 20,000–25,000 Baker was used to entertaining at St.
Mirren, the striker declared in his thick Scottish accent, “I can’t tell you how
proud I was to play for my country, the United States.”
Rog tested Gerry’s loyalty by asking him which team he would support if
England played the US. Baker laughed and responded, “America! That should
go without saying, because I am Scottish as well!” When asked if that was
merely the Scottish contrarian in him talking, Gerry did not have to hesitate
for a second. “If Scotland and America played, I would still support
America,” he said warmly. “Let’s put it like that.”
 Sadly, Gerry Baker passed away in August 2013. To remember his life is
to be aware of the rich and complex footballing history that, though often
forgotten, flows through this nation’s veins.
Bald Denier: Any man who elects to face up to thinning hair by elaborate
combing, the desperate use of thickening product, a full-on hair transplant
(see Rooney, Wayne), or the dreaded comb-over. Simply cannot be trusted in
professional or personal relationships. Never rely on a person who cannot face
up to the truth when it is staring right back at him in the mirror on a daily
basis.
Balding Sectors: The Unicorn. The Hair Island. The Monk. The Fooling No
One but Yourself. The Wayne Rooney.
British comedian and broadcaster, and fellow Chelsea fan Johnny Vaughan,
was the first person I heard referring to “problems in various sectors” while he
was applying hair-building fibers to his receding mop in the dressing room of
My Kind of Town, a short-lived ABC variety series that he hosted and I
produced in 2005. Over “Pops and Tops,” poppadums and Lager Tops (beer
with a bit of Sprite at the top), at an Indian restaurant in Hell’s Kitchen, we
developed the sectors theory into a very basic Dewey Decimal System for the
patterns of male baldness, all of which started with the number 3:
3.1: Left high forehead
3.2: Center forehead
3.3: Right high forehead
3.4: Crown of head
3.5: Center of head, forward of crown
 Problems in sector 3.1 always go hand in hand with problems in 3.3.
Followed, almost inevitably, by 3.4. However, these same men can hang on
for quite a while in 3.2 and 3.5, which is why many think Davo is “way less
bald in person.” Davo, however, is very worried about sectors 3.1 and 3.3
receding further to meet an expanding 3.5, which would result in a total “hair
island.” Some balds, like Rog actually, lose 3.1, 3.3, and 3.2 but hold on
nicely to 3.4 and 3.5. A combo bald of Rog and Davo would be, therefore,
hardly bald at all.
Bald Players: Wonder goals, miracle saves, visionary assists. You can keep
them all. We are of the considered opinion there are few more thrilling
athletic visions than the sight of an unabashedly bald man storming down a
football field in search of glory. It is poetry written in human form.
Dutch winger Arjen Robben’s baldness appeared to reinforce his sense of
outsiderness and otherworldliness (Seth Meyers once came on our show and
informed us that “when you enter the Bald and Fast Hall of Fame you pass a
statue of Arjen Robben”). Zidane’s baldness, which grew in proportion to his
success, enhanced the sense of Zen mystery which cloaked him.
Fellow French World Cup ’98 defender Frank Leboeuf’s shiny pate added
to his rugged menace, or teammate, jesting goalkeeper Fabien Barthez,
whose teammate Laurent Blanc used to kiss his bald head before kickoff for
luck.
Other balds lack the confidence to face the truth. Ivory Coast winger
Gervinho obsesses about the thinning area between his headband, hair, and
forehead, tending to it as if it were the Demilitarized Zone between North
and South Korea. English legend and 1966 World Cup winner Bobby
Charlton relied on delusion as a crutch. “When I started losing my hair in the
late fifties, I was afraid it would damage my image if the public found out,”
he once said. “I considered making a rugging order [a wig] but our mum
recommended a comb-over. To my surprise it worked and nobody noticed.”
By “nobody,” Charlton means “everybody.”
Yet by far the most famous footballing bald denier is Charlton’s fellow one-
time United legend, Wayne Rooney. On July 4, 2011, Wayne Rooney
announced to the world by Twitter that he had undergone a hair transplant:
“Just to confirm to all my followers, I have had a hair transplant. I was going
bald at 25 why not. I’m delighted with the result.” His delight did not last
long, as the synthetic hair failed to bed. After shaving off the new do, Rooney
underwent a second transplant two years later. His subsequent career collapse
serves as a cautionary tale for those who seek to cheat their baldness.
Bar Mitzvah: I once talked on the pod about how much of what I learned in
life, I gleaned from listening to the bar mitzvah speeches given to my friends
by their fathers. England was such a repressed place in the 1980s. Yet there
was something about the transitional power of the event which empowered
every bar mitzvah dad to talk with a rare dose of honesty and candor and
depth.
I had the opportunity to speak at my eldest son’s bar mitzvah in January
2016. The toast was entitled “Seven Lessons About Life I Wish I Had Known
When I Was Thirteen.” Only after giving it did I realize there were only six:
One: Every moment you have with your grandparents is a gift—they are
four of the most nourishing relationships you will ever have in your life. They
will ground you, offer you wisdom, and make sure you have a rich sense of
who you are and where you come from. Never take them for granted.
Two: Every human being has strengths and weaknesses. Even you Samson
Bennett. Know them. Play to them. And in terms of your weaknesses, work
hard to decide which you can change and which you cannot. The secret to life
is about knowing how to be yourself and being at ease with it all.
Three: You have been blessed with copious amounts of an emotion that is
all too rare in the world: empathy. Your summer camp has a motto: “Help the
Other Fellow,” which I hope you will come to understand is more than a
slogan they sew into the camp’s socks. The ability to look at the world from
different perspectives outside of your own—and to do so with compassion—
is what will empower you to achieve all that you can achieve in your lifetime.
Four: Know the difference between an acquaintance and a true friend.
Make the most out of the former. Do anything for the latter because true
friendships are much rarer wonders. Hold on to them dearly. They will form a
spine of memory and meaning in your life.
Five: I wake up every morning and thank God I live in the United States of
America and I hope you do too. I love America even more than Kid Rock
loves America because this country offers more freedoms and possibilities
than anywhere else in the world. Treasure that. Value it. Make the most of it.
Dream big dreams. Work hard. And if you put your mind to it, anything and
everything is possible.
Finally…
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The State, here, amongst ourselves, had, throughout the whole of
this middle period, been asserting that it had a domain in which it
was supreme; that the Church had usurped a great part of this
domain, and was still endeavouring to extend its usurpations; and
that there could be no peace till the whole of this usurped ground
had been recovered. At last the State became sufficiently
enlightened and strong to establish its supremacy in the domain it
claimed; and to estop the Church from its usurpations. This was a
great gain. The work, however, was very far from having been
completed. What was done, though much, was in truth only a
beginning. What further was required was that the State should
forthwith address itself to the discharge of the high and fruitful duties
that belonged to the position it had assumed. But the fact was that it
did not yet fully and clearly perceive either what had become its own
sphere, rights, and duties, or what had become the sphere, rights,
and duties of the Church. Some, indeed, of the conceptions it formed
on these points were entirely erroneous, as both the teaching of
History—now better understood—and the inconveniences, the evils,
and the necessities of our present condition have since
demonstrated. The correction of these errors is a very important part
of the task of the present generation. The unsettled character of the
actual relation of the State and of the Church to each other, and the
resultant uneasiness and tenderness felt by each, and the way in
which, by these causes, each is at present crippled for much good it
might be doing, are to be attributed to these errors. These are
matters in which History is our only guide and interpreter. A
knowledge of the origin, nature, aims, and fortunes of this long
conflict in past times, enables us to understand its present position,
and to foresee its future course. We are at a certain point in a chain
of events: and nothing throws light on the events that are coming
except the events that have been now evolved.
When ideas, through their having been traditional for many
generations, have got a strong hold on men’s thoughts and feelings,
it is impossible to break away from them, and in some matters to
face in the very opposite direction, at a moment. Ideas grow, and
decay: they are not subject to instantaneous transformations, like the
figures in a kaleidoscope. This explains the partial acquiescence by
the State in the theory that the Church was only the State acting in
another capacity: as it were a committee of the whole House for
some politically necessary objects; and with an authority that must
be maintained. There was merely a colourable amount of truth in
this. Practically, and relatively to the condition society had reached, it
was a mistake; and one that was unworkable in every particular. The
Church, whatever might have been the case in the early stages of
society, is not now the State in another capacity. It has ceased to
have now any directly political objects. It has no authority in the
sense in which the State has: the authority of the State being such
as can be enforced by pains and penalties, and by physical
constraints; whereas the authority of the Church is only that of moral
and of intellectual truth—as much as, and no more than, it claimed
eighteen hundred years ago. In this matter its present advantages
are that it has not to contend for existence against hostile
established religions, and a consequently hostile tone of morality and
of society; for what is now generally recognized, in the moral order,
is precisely its own principles.
The logical and practical issue of this mistake was the
mischievous conclusion that the teaching of all morality, including
that which is necessary for the order and well-being of modern
societies, must be left exclusively to the Church; and that the State
must confine its own action to the repression of crime, and to the
protection of person and of property; and this only by the way of
punishment. Now each of these two propositions has, in a certain
sense, and from a certain point of view, though not those belonging
to these times, enough plausibility to enable a kind of defence of it to
be set up; but, at the same time, each contains such an amount of
real falsity to the existing circumstances and conditions of society, as
to issue in incalculable mischief both to the State and to the Church;
both in what it has caused, and is causing, to be done, and in what it
has hindered, and is hindering, from being done.
This was a mistake which assigned to the Church work, which
what have now become its constitution, its real objects, and the
means and forces at its disposal, incapacitate it from doing; and
which led the State to abdicate what is now its highest, and really
paramount, function. It put both the Church and the State in a wrong
position, and on a wrong path. It enfeebled, depraved, and shackled
both. It brought them into inevitable conflict with each other. It made
them both aim at what could never be more than very imperfectly
attained by the means they were respectively endeavouring to
employ. Its results were confusion, anarchy, and failure. Hence came
about the neglect by the State of national education. And hence the
claims of the Church to educate the nation. Hence the fierce
contradictions to these claims, expressed in a blind demand, as if
that were the only way of effectually contradicting them, for secular
education, that is to say, for the exclusion of morality from education,
and its limitation to an acquaintance with the instruments of
knowledge, plus a little physical instruction. This would make things
far worse than they are at present. It would be prohibiting the
acquisition, by those who are now the depositories of power, of the
knowledge and sentiments requisite for its right use. It would be
creating, and setting at work, in the midst of us, the most efficient
machinery imaginable for the general demoralization of the
community. It would be going some way towards transforming the
commonwealth into an aggregation of wild beasts, but of wild beasts
possessed of knowledge and reason. The concession of this by the
State would be the renunciation of its first and most imperative duty.
Hence, in short, all the imbroglio and the evils of the present
situation of this great question; and all the misunderstandings and
hot conflicts between those on the one hand, whom logic, working
with wrong data, has made secularists, but to the exclusion of
secular morality, the chief point of all, and, on the other hand, those
whose fealty to what is highest and best, and should be supreme in
man’s nature, even when regarded only as a political animal, has
obliged them to enrol themselves as supporters of (I am afraid we
must say internecine) denominational teaching in the education of
the people. It is obvious that, as it is the duty of the State to regard
the community as a single family, and to endeavour to bring its
members to act harmoniously together, it would be better, both
theoretically and practically, to exclude the inculcation of these
differences from the Schools of the State: that, if it must come, would
come with less evil from the denominations themselves.
 But truth, reason, right, and History must in the end triumph. It is
the duty of the State, and we rigidly exact from it the performance of
it, to punish and repress crime: it must, therefore, be its duty, but this
we will not allow it to perform, to teach that kind of morality which
manifestly has a tendency to prevent the commission of crime. The
evil is done when the crime has been committed: à fortiori, then, it is
better to prevent than to punish it. It is the duty of the State, and we
energetically insist on its being discharged effectually, to protect
person and property: à fortiori, then, it must be its duty to teach that
morality which shall dispose men to respect the rights of person and
of property. It is the duty of the State to do what it can, within its own
sphere, to promote the well-being of its members; we may presume,
then, that it is its duty to teach that morality which shall have a
tendency, above every thing else the State can do, to secure this
great object. How can it be argued that the State does rightly and
wisely in neglecting the one means which stands first in the order of
nature, and which is emphatically the most efficient, for bringing
about its great paramount object? To deny that the means for doing
this duty are within its sphere, is to deny that it has any duty at all,
except that of punishing. Possibly such means may not be within the
sphere, as some define it, of the political Economist. But, though a
Statesman ought to be a political Economist, he ought to be
something besides. And it may be very bad political Economy to
allow in these days the mass of the people to be vicious. This may,
in the highest degree, be destructive of wealth. But, at all events,
what the Statesman has to lay his measures for is the well-being of
the community, of which wealth is only one ingredient; and which,
too, may be so distributed, and so used, and productive of such
effects and influences, looking at the community generally, as on the
whole not to promote its well-being. At all events, man, even when
regarded in his social capacity exclusively, does not live either by, or
for, bread alone.
The present condition of society is never to be lost sight of. And
the two most prominent elements of its present condition are the
general diffusion, throughout all classes, of political power, which
almost means that the decision of political questions has been
entrusted to the most ignorant and uninstructed, because they are
the most numerous, part of the community; and the fact that every
member of the community is now required to think, and to act, and to
take charge of, and to provide for himself. Here are two reasons,
which have made it as much the duty of the State to teach, as to
repress, and to punish; for knowledge, and this means pre-eminently
moral knowledge, has become quite as necessary to it for self-
preservation. Though, indeed, punishment is a mode of teaching,
and the policeman and the magistrate are a kind of teachers; but it is
as unreasonable, as suicidal, to have recourse to no other mode of
teaching, and to no other kind of teachers.
I think, then, that none but unstatesmanlike Economists will deny
that it is the duty of the State to see to the education of the whole
people. The Egyptian Priest, and the Hebrew Prophet, never made,
nor could have made, a mistake of this kind; to their apprehension
the right training of the people was the paramount duty of a
Government—the very purpose and object for which it existed. This
must, amongst ourselves, be given mainly in schools established
everywhere. We have now at last got so far as to attempt their
general establishment. The schools, however, are only machinery;
and the great question is, what kind of work this machinery is to do?
and the State will not discharge properly its duty in this all-important
matter, if it does not take care that the schools shall teach the
morality indispensably required, under existing conditions, for the
well-being of society. This morality means the principles of Justice,
Truth, Temperance, Honesty, Manliness, Forbearance, Considerate
Kindliness, Industry, Thrift, Foresight, Responsibility. These are
political and social, and perhaps also economical, necessities of
modern communities. They are now the first great wants of society.
Speaking generally, they can be taught to the masses of the people,
and to the whole people, best, and, in fact, only by the State. Every
one, I think, must be ready to acknowledge, that if the State, during
the last fifty years, had seen to their having been taught, so far as
schools and early training could have taught them, to the population
of this country, we should be in a widely different position—all the
difference being on the right side—from that in which we are at this
day.
 It is just because the State has made, at best, only half-hearted
attempts to do any part of this work, and has even at times loudly
proclaimed that it saw that it was not its duty to undertake it, that is to
say that it was its duty to renounce its most important duty, that that
part of the community in which the moral instinct predominates, has
turned to Church organizations, and called upon them to undertake
it. And this is a reason why many of this class have been attracted to
that particular branch of the Church which advances, most loudly,
the most unqualified claims to the superintendence of the whole
domain of morality, not making any distinction between that which is
social, civil, and political, and that which belongs to the higher
sphere of the spiritual life. Had the State seen its duty in this great
matter, and endeavoured to act up to it, nothing of this kind would, or
could, have occurred. On the contrary: the wisest and best part of
the community would have supported it in carrying out what it had
undertaken, with their whole heart and soul.
Of course it is a mistake to look to the Church for this kind of work.
Neither the Church of Rome, nor any other Church, either in this, or
in any other, country, has the means necessary for enforcing this
kind of teaching, or even for bringing it home, generally, to the bulk
of the population, that is to say to the very part of it which most
needs it. Nor under any conjuncture of circumstances, which can be
imagined as possible, will they have the means for doing it. And
even further, if the powers necessary for the purpose could be
conferred upon them, it would be putting them in a false position to
call upon them to undertake this mundane, political work. Besides
that, the false positions into which events and circumstances have
already, more or less, brought all Churches, have so damaged their
credit with large proportions of the population, in all the foremost
nations of the world, as that their teaching of this kind would not,
generally, be received, would even be strenuously resisted; and it
would still further weaken them, were they to attempt to teach these
things for these purposes. It would bring them before the world as
mere instruments of national police—a position that is now so utterly
and glaringly at discord with the purpose and idea of a Church, that
its assumption would go a long way towards obscuring altogether in
men’s minds that purpose, and that idea; far too much in that
direction having been done already. We know how disastrous an
effect the assumption, to some extent, of this position has had, in
this and other countries, on some branches of the Church. This is
true now, and will continue to be so, till the Church shall have
become an organization in which all of us, laity as well as clergy,
women as well as men, who shall be animated by the desire for the
higher moral and spiritual life, shall find ready for us places and
work; and until, in this matter, the first effort amongst us shall not be
to secure this-world power, and social and political position, which
must always be accompanied by separations and antagonisms, and
is demoralizing, and destructive of the very idea of a Church; but to
reform and improve, and to lift above the world; an effort which is
actively and fruitfully moral, and of the very essence of the work of a
Church. This is truly spiritual work.
Taking things, then, as they are, any Church would be but a bad
and inefficient teacher of the political, we may even call it the
secular, kind of morality we are now thinking about. While every one
can see that, as it is an affair of the State, and comes within its
sphere, and is useful for its purposes; and as it is the duty, and the
interest, of the State to teach it; and as the State has, and alone has,
the power of teaching it, it might be well and properly taught by the
State. But it may also be remarked that no Church can afford to give
to this work of the State the first place in its thoughts and efforts.
Every branch of the Church, from the greatest down to the least,
must be occupied, primarily, by its own necessities. Self-preservation
is the first law of nature, in the case of Churches as well as of every
thing else that has life. The first care, therefore, as things now are, of
every Church must be to maintain and enforce its own system; and,
as part of the same effort, to weaken those whose systems are
opposed to its own. This, however disguised, must be a main object
with all of them. That it is so, is very disastrous for Churches; still it is
a necessity of their present position. And the efforts that arise out of
this necessity can, at the best, be only non-moral: in truth, one
cannot but think that they must generally be demoralizing, and even
immoral: at all events, they can only be made at the expense of the
higher morality, which is the true domain of the Church. But, however
much this point may be controverted, the other is an obvious fact,
and incontrovertible, that no Church has the power of teaching to the
community, and this is especially true of the most numerous and
least instructed part of the community, that morality which is now
necessary for the well-being of political societies. In this matter there
is a wide difference between past and present times. Formerly this
teaching, however desirable it might have been, was not
indispensable under the old restrictive and paternal systems of
society. All that has now passed away. We have drifted from those
moorings, and out of those harbours. Our population has been
agglomerated into large masses; and these masses have been put
into a position to exercise the power which resides in numbers.
Every one, too, is now called upon, and this is a most important
element in the consideration of what ought to be done, to take care
of himself. No class is now put in charge of another class. The moral
training, therefore, which these conditions require has become the
paramount object and first duty of the State; and, one way or
another, perhaps the highest personal mundane interest of every
member of the community; and all would do well to demand from the
State the discharge of this duty.
That the State should awake to a sense of its duty in this matter,
and act up to that awakened sense, would be no encroachment on
the domain of the Church. In so doing, indeed, it would set free, and
strengthen, the Church for its own proper work. The State cannot do
the work of the Church, any more than the Church can do the work
of the State. Each has now, distinctly, marked out for it its own
sphere, its own aims, its own rights, and its own duties. The world is
rapidly advancing to a correct understanding of all this. Each should,
properly, by attending to and doing its own work, help the other.
Each is necessary to the other. The morality the State has charge of
is that which, obviously, contributes to the right ordering and
prosperity of the commonwealth generally, and of its members
individually. It is such as can be expounded, and made intelligible to
all and acceptable to many. Much of it too can be enforced on all.
Not, of course, in the old Egyptian fashion, but in a fashion which is
in accord with the conditions of modern societies.
 There can be few things more mistaken and ridiculous than to
urge that the Master of a School, because he is a layman, cannot
teach such morality as the State requires for its own maintenance,
and for the well-being of its members. He is just as capable as the
Minister of Religion, or as any body else, of learning his own proper
work. The point that really needs to be seen clearly is that the proper
work of the State School Master, and of the Minister of Religion, so
differ, as that each is incapable of teaching fully and rightly what
ought to be taught by the other. The Minister of Religion puts himself
quite in a false position, and contradicts the idea of his office, when
he undertakes the work of the State; and the School Master goes out
of his way, and passes beyond the work of the State, when he enters
on the ground of the Minister of Religion. From the time that civil
societies existed, or that men had come to act from a sense of duty,
all well disposed Fathers of families, not excluding Masters of
Schools, have deemed themselves qualified to teach, and have
taught, with more or less success, to their children such ethics as
they themselves had attained to a knowledge of, and thought
desirable. Let any one refer to the duties I just now enumerated, as
socially and politically necessary in these days; and, when he has
considered what they are, will he be disposed to assert that a man of
ordinary intelligence, the business of whose life it is to teach, whose
attention has been particularly directed to this subject, and who has
studied it with the knowledge that he must teach it, will, after all, be
unable to teach it? Or would any teacher, with that list in his hand,
say that it never would be in his power to give lessons on each of the
heads it contains; and to see that the practice of the pupils
corresponded with what he taught? If the Clergy could do this, why
not the Masters of Schools? The fact, however, is that the Clergy
cannot, and that the Masters of Schools can.
Nothing else that is taught in Schools can be taught so naturally,
so easily, and so surely. Almost everything that occurs, or that is
done, supplies ground for a lesson on the subject. In nothing else
that we have to teach do we find a foundation laid for our teaching
already, as it is here, in the instinctive moral sentiments which have,
some how or other, come to be, or, if not, which may be made to be,
a part of the pupil’s nature. The discipline, too, of life here again aids
the teacher in a manner, which is not the case in anything else he
has to teach. The Ethics the State requires may be taught, as the
occasion in any, and each, case will suggest to the teacher, either
practically, or dogmatically, or scientifically; either with a reference at
the moment to the principle of utility, or to the voice of conscience, or
to experience. Lessons of this kind may also be set forth in Parables,
or illustrative stories: a large proportion of the reading lessons now
used in Schools have this aim. Nor would there be many who would
object to reference being made, in the teaching of the State School-
Master, to the Religious ground, that is to say, to the future life:
though of course it is manifest that this would belong rather to the
teaching of the Church and of the Minister of Religion. Practically,
however, that is with respect to the substance and form of the virtues
taught, there would be no antagonism between the two: for even with
respect to Charity, which Religion elevates above Justice, the
layman would still have something to say in the same sense, for he
would show that the kindliness, and consideration for others, he
taught supplemented and went beyond Justice. Indeed, what
antagonism could there be, seeing that our ideas of the several
virtues, wherever they differ from what Aristotle or Cicero would have
taught, are what our Religion has made them to all of us alike? The
chief difference, indeed, I can make out would be a very small one,
for it would be the importance the lay-teacher would have to assign
to industry and thrift, secondary virtues of which popular Religion
does not take much notice: an oversight which, of course, arises out
of popular misapprehensions, such, for instance, as those we are all
familiar with in respect of the purpose and character of the present
life, of the meaning of faith, and of the teaching of Jesus Christ on
the subject of Divine interposition in the current affairs of life.
But, however, this little difference, though indeed it happens to be
one that must ultimately disappear, for it arises out of a
misconception, will help us to understand the difference between the
morality the State requires and that which the Church presents to us.
The former is limited to what is useful politically and socially, and for
mundane purposes; while that of which the Church has charge
(there being ultimately no real contradiction between the two)
consists of the same principles, only purified, elevated, and rendered
more fruitful by the action of higher motives. It is that which is in
thought perfect; the morality of the kingdom of God, that is of those
who have been brought to understand that they have a citizenship
which is not of this world, and whose conversation is above. It is that
morality which is cast in the mould of the ideas we endeavour to
form of the moral attributes of the Deity; or rather the application of
that to our own present condition: its members endeavour to form
God within themselves. This cannot be enforced. The idea of
constraint contradicts its nature. Its motives are found in men’s
spontaneously engendered conceptions of moral perfection; and in
the hope of a future life, which alone can supply a stage and
conditions suitable for the complete realization of such conceptions.
The rights of the Church are those of humanity to complete freedom
in its effort to advance and purify its ideal of the moral and spiritual
life. This has been its work from the beginning, though in the early
stages of society it embraced the State, and has subsequently often,
during the struggles of the State to establish its independence, been
in conflict with it: sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes
both having been in the wrong: all this History explains. Its true
position is to be in advance of the State. It elaborates and diffuses
that interpretation of man’s nature, and position, and of the
knowledge man has attained to, those conceptions of virtue and that
morality which the State, following in the wake of the Church, adopts
in its own degree and fashion, and makes in such degree and
fashion the aims and principles of its legislation. Every virtue,
however elementary and indispensable, according to our ideas,
might once have been beyond the power and the ken of the State.
We can imagine such a condition of things, as that, during its
continuance the State would have been unable to enforce and
inculcate the principles of common honesty, and even of
responsibility. It may once have been so here, just as it is still, to this
day, in Dahomey. Scientifically, the condition of Dahomey is as much
a part of the subject as the condition of England. The question is,
what has brought about the difference? The answer is the Church—
the Church that was in Egypt, that was in Israel, that was in Greece,
that was in Rome, that was in the forests of Germany, that has been,
and is, amongst ourselves. The Church has, all along, been going
before and shaping, little by little and step by step, higher and clearer
conceptions of right, and of duty, and of life; and the State has
followed, little by little and step by step, accepting and adopting what
the Church had made possible for it. Its position has generally been,
and ex rerum naturâ it must be so, behind the Church. This is seen
distinctly in the early days of Christianity. The Church was then
working out, and diffusing, much that the State afterwards
recognized and acted upon. This is their true relation to each other. It
is not merely that the nation, organized for its immediate mundane
wants, is the State, and that humanity, organized for the needs of its
higher life, is the Church; but that, besides this, in the progress of
society and of humanity, each is indispensable to the other.
Universal History tells us this: and from universal History, in a matter
of this kind, there is no appeal. And what universal History tells us
the History, as far as it goes, of the two famous buildings before us
confirms.
And now we must take off our thoughts from the two great
organizations of society, whose action and interaction have all along
been at work in shaping our political, social, and moral growth, and
making us what we are, symbols of which, in the two buildings
before us, we have been looking upon, and must turn our thoughts to
the great million-peopled city itself, of the existence of which we are
reminded, at the spot where we have taken our stand, chiefly by a
few lordly mansions, glimpses of which we catch, here and there,
through the trees. What variety of life is stirring within its widely
differing regions! How much energy and power, and how much
waste of power, and neglect of opportunity, are there! What
principles are struggling into existence! What principles are dying
out! What a conflict of principles is going on! We shall think not only
of the lordly mansions environing the parks that are spread out
before us, but equally of the commercial city on the banks of the
river, and of the moiling and toiling, the rough and gin-drinking
myriads of the manufacturing quarters of this world-capital. We shall,
in our thoughts, set by the side of what is refined, and intellectual,
and energetic, what is frivolous and enfeebled, what is rough, and
degraded, and vicious. We shall become sensible of the
uncertainties, as well as of the power, of the great intellectual and
moral organism that is at work all around us.
How much is there that is good and hopeful in all classes, and how
much in all that is evil, and evil enough almost to cause
despondency! How vast and complex is the whole! Your thought
enables you to understand that the railway and the telegraph have
made the city in which you are standing the centre of English
business and life, in a manner that was impossible formerly; and
more than that, for the ocean steamers and electric cables have
made it the centre of the business of the world. How does the
imagination, when stirred by the suggestions of the scene, picture to
itself the fashion in which are peopled the decks and saloons of the
great steamships that are hurrying, outward and homeward, on all
seas and oceans, to carry out the plans that have been originated
and matured here! You think, too, of the countless messages that
are flashing to and fro, beneath those seas and oceans, every
moment, for the same purpose. Here is the heart of the world. The
life-sustaining blood, in the form of human thought, and which carries
along in itself the elements of construction as well as of life, is ever
going forth from this heart, and coming back to it again. How many
tens of thousands of steam-engines, in as many mines and factories,
are throbbing and working to supply the wants, and maintain the
wealth, of this manifold Babylon we have built. Of this wealth we see
an exhibition here every day; for this is the spot for the daily parade
of one of its braveries. How have the corn-fields and meadows of
this island been solicited year by year to yield more and more, and
how widely have Australian and African wildernesses been peopled
with flocks and herds, for the enlargement of this wealth. This has on
its surface only a material aspect. It is true that its first and most
obvious result is to give wealth, and the enjoyment of wealth; and
that neither of these are necessarily and in themselves good: for if
wealth lead only to the self-bounded fruition of wealth it is
deadening, corrupting, and degrading: and of this there is in the city
around you much. But, however, this is not all its effect. It has given
to many minds culture and leisure, which they have devoted to
advancing the intellectual wealth of man; and it has produced many
who have devoted themselves, according to the light that was within
them, and prompted by the noblest impulses of our nature, to the
improvement of the moral condition of those with whom they come in
contact. Which of the two preponderate, the good or the bad effect of
the sum of all that is going on, we need not attempt to estimate here.
But to whichever side the balance may incline at the present
moment, we believe that the bad will perish, as it has done in past
times, and that the good only will survive—for only what is good and
true is eternal.
And now we turn from the many who are wealthy to the greater
many who are poor, and are carrying on a painful struggle for bare
existence, in this vast assemblage of humanity: and here, too, we
find mingled with what there is of good much that is evil. Here, as
with the wealthy, are aims that are unwise, springing from misleading
instincts which society has, carelessly and ignorantly, allowed to be
formed in its bosom, and which tend in the individual to unhappiness
and degradation, and in society itself to disorder and subversion.
All this must be taken in by the mind in order that the scene before
us may be rightly understood. We could not interpret the scenes of
old Egypt till we had formed some conception of what old Egypt was,
and we must endeavour to do the same for our corresponding
English scene. It is in this way only that the study and understanding
of old Egypt can be of any use to us. It is only when we understand
both that we are in a position to ask the question whether old Egypt
has anything to teach us.
It tells us that the aims of society must be moral; and that the
morality required can, within certain limits, be created and shaped,
and made instinctive, where society itself honestly wishes and
intelligently endeavours to do it. But as we look upon old Egypt we
see that the morality we need is not precisely what they imagined
and established, and that we are precluded from attempting to
establish what we want in the fashion of old Egypt. Theirs was a
system of constraint, ours must be a system of freedom. Theirs was
a system that concentrated its highest advantages on a few, ours
must be a system that opens its advantages to all. We must present
what we have to offer in such a form that men will voluntarily accept
it for themselves and for their children, and allow it to shape them. If
we see distinctly what we have to do, and the conditions under which
we have to do it, this will be in itself the achievement of half our
work. Their method was to devise a system, in strict conformity to
the conditions of the problem as it then stood, and place it as a yoke
upon society. They could do that: we cannot. Our method must be
accepted freely by society, and by the individual. We, too, must
devise a system in strict conformity to the conditions of the problem
as it now stands; and it must be such as approves itself to the
understanding and the conscience of the men of these times. The
successful fulfilment of the first requirement will, probably, include
the second.
Egypt, Israel, Greece, Rome, each did the work that had been
allotted to it. What we have to do is not to repeat what any one of
them did. That, indeed, we could not do; and, if we could, it would be
of no use to us. Imitations at all times, but more particularly when
circumstances differ, are worthless and disorganizing. And yet what
each of them did was necessary for us. The work we have to do now
is a great advance upon theirs, and is to be done under very different
conditions from theirs, but is so connected with theirs that we cannot
dispense with their foundations, or with the principles they worked
with. We need them all, but we must use them in the way our work
requires. When men came to build with stone, they did not abandon
all the principles of construction they had worked out for themselves
during the time they had built with wood. Those principles were right
as far as they went. They were not all bad, and worthless, and
inapplicable to the new material and its grander possibilities. What
had to be done was to incorporate the new principles that were
needed with those from among the old that would still be
serviceable. The purpose and object of building, whatever the
materials might be, continued one and the same. And so, now that
we have come to use glass and iron largely in architecture, the same
process is again repeated. Some new principles may be introduced,
but we do not discard all the old ones. Just so is it with the social
fabric.
The great and governing differences in our case are that what we
have to do is to be done for all, and that this is accompanied with the
condition of not partial, but universal freedom. It never was so with
any of the old peoples. And though our work is new in some of its
conditions, and such as, in its reach and variety, was never dreamt
of by the four great teacher nations of antiquity, there is no more
reason for our failing in it than there was for their failing in theirs.
That it is to be done is, in some sort, proof that it may be done.
Indeed, there is apparently more reason for our success than there
was for theirs. We have their experience; and in the principles of
universal freedom, and universal justice, we have more to commend
what ought to be done now to men’s hearts and understandings then
they had. Freedom, knowledge, truth, justice, goodness; these must
be our aims, our means, our statecraft, our religion. We do not go off
the old tracks. They all converge into our path. And so we find that
we are advancing, having history for guide, through new conditions,
into a richer and better life, placed within the reach of an ever
increasing proportion of the community.
The greatest, perhaps, of the advantages that will be found in our
wealth is that it will enable us to confer on every member of the
community such knowledge and such training as shall have an
hopeful, perhaps a preponderant, tendency towards making
instinctive, at all events in the minds of the greater number, a rational
use of the freedom they already possess, and the love and practice
of truth, justice, and goodness. Though, indeed, when we look at the
educational efforts of Saxony, of Switzerland, and of New England,
we are almost brought to fear that this great and necessary work will
be undertaken more readily and intelligently, and done sooner and
better, among people, who have less of the material means for
carrying it out than ourselves. In saying this, I do not at all mean that
we should confine our efforts merely to what they have done, for
they have, to a great extent, omitted that morality which I consider
the main point of all; but that we should be much better than we are,
if we had done as much as they, with their very inferior means, have
already accomplished.
In Egypt submission and order; in Israel, though labouring under
most cruel disadvantage, during its better days belief in and devotion
to right, and during its latter days the determination to maintain at
any cost its morality and religion; at Athens the appreciation of
intellectual culture; in the Roman Empire, by the mere working of its
system, the idea of the supremacy of the law, and the sentiment of
the brotherhood of mankind—were made instinctive. Why should we
despair of doing as much for what we need? Our task, indeed,
though so much grander, and promising so much more fruit than
theirs, does not appear as hard as theirs. If it be beyond our powers,
then modern society is but a fermenting mass of disorder and
corruption. It cannot be so, however; for if it were, then the long
course of History would now have to be reversed. All the progress of
the Past, and all its hard-won achievements, would prove without
purpose; and there would remain for us only to despair of truth, of
right, of religion, and of humanity itself.
 FOOTNOTES
[1] This was written in 1871. It was in the following year, that is,
in the interval between the first and the second edition of this
work, that the Livingstone-search Commissioner of the ‘New York
Herald’ found the great African explorer.
[2] Some, I am aware, are disposed to answer the question of
this Chapter by ascribing to the Egyptians a Turanian origin. The
following appear to be the steps in the process, by which they
endeavour to reach this conclusion. There was, in remote times,
on the banks of the Euphrates, a Priest Class, which, on the
supposition that in its sacred and literary language, there are
some traces of the early Turanian form of speech, might have had
a Turanian origin. (Though, indeed, a Priest Class is rather an
eastern Aryan, or even a Semitic, than a Turanian phenomenon.)
This Priest Class, thus conceivably Turanian, might, conceivably,
have had some ethnological connexion with the Priest Caste of
Egypt. (There is, however, nothing to lead us to suppose that its
antiquity was as great as that of the Priest Caste of Egypt.)
Therefore the Egyptians might have had a Turanian origin. To put
the argument abstractedly: We may imagine two presumable
possibilities; the first of which possesses little probability, and the
second still less; and then by the juxta-position of the two reach a
desired conclusion. In other words, some degree of probability will
be the product of the multiplication of the non-probability of a first
assumption by the improbability of a second. This is the form of
argument by which probability is inferred from the accumulation of
improbabilities.
Of course, there is no saying what discoveries the future may
have in store; but, in the present state of knowledge, it seems an
unlikely supposition that Arts, Science, Law, Philosophy and
Religion were, aboriginally, Turanian.
[3] It is a curious fact that the inhabitants of the Lake-villages of
Switzerland cultivated, in the prehistoric period, as may be seen
in the Zurich collection of objects from the sites of these villages,
the same variety of wheat—that which we call Mummy, or hen-
and-chickens wheat—as the old Egyptians. Did the first
immigrants into Europe, of whom we may suppose that we have
some historical traces, for the Etruscans may have been, and the
Laps, Finns, and Basques may still be, surviving fragments of
their settlements, bring with them this variety of wheat at the
same time that another swarm from the same Central Asian hive
were taking it with them to the Valley of the Nile.
[4] I am led to propound this conjecture from a desire to render
intelligible what Herodotus says of their hair and skin; for we
know, both from the old paintings and from the existing mummies,
that the true Egyptian’s skin was not black, and that there was no
kink in his hair. It is impossible then to take his statement as it
stands; and I can imagine no other way of correcting it.
The difficulty here I conceive to be of just the reverse kind to
that which meets us in his statement, that the circumference of
Lake Mœris was 450 miles; and which, therefore, in the chapter
on the Faioum, I endeavoured to render intelligible by just the
reverse process, that is to say, by suggesting that, while we
suppose he is speaking of the Lake only, he is really speaking of
the whole of a vast system of artificial irrigation, of which the lake
was the main part. Here he is speaking of a part of the Egyptian
population, only he puts what he says in such a way that we
suppose that he is speaking of the whole of it.
I will take the opportunity of this note to propound an
explanation of Homer’s having sent Jupiter, and all the gods, to
Oceanus, to feast, for twelve days, with the irreproachable
Ethiopians. We immediately ask, Why with the Ethiopians? Why
are they irreproachable? What have they got to do with Oceanus?
Why to feast? Why for so long a period? Why all the gods? The
light, in which things are viewed in this book enables us to see an
answer to each of these questions.
Homer, we know, was acquainted with the magnificence of
Thebes. In his time, and for many centuries before, the
Phœnicians had, through commercial intercourse, been closely
connected with the Greeks; having, during the whole of that time,
been an autonomous dependency, or dependent ally, of the
Egyptians, who, in going to and from their head-quarters on the
Euphrates, had kept open a line of communication through
Phœnicia. The Phœnicians, therefore, must have had a great
deal to tell the Greeks about the marvellous greatness of Egypt,
the chief ingredient in which was the magnificence of Thebes.
There was plenty of time for all this to be thoroughly talked over.
Sethos and Rameses, the great Theban builders, had preceded
Homer’s day by four or five centuries. And, as such things never
lose in telling, Homer’s contemporaries must have had no very
inadequate—we now know that they could hardly have had
exaggerated—conceptions of the temples and wealth of Thebes.
He mentions the great amount of its military population; its
hundred gates, which, as no traces of walls of fortification for the
city have been found, meant, probably, the propylons of the
temples; and its vast wealth. He knew probably that Egypt
consisted of an Upper and of a Lower Egypt, and that the
inhabitants of the Upper country were darker, and that in the
extreme south, as then understood, the complexion became quite
black; and so, to distinguish them from the maritime Egyptians, he
calls them Ethiopians. He uses the same word as an epithet of
dark objects, as of wine and bronze. And here among these
Ethiopians was the wondrous Thebes. When the Phœnicians had
told the inquisitive Greeks of its mighty temples, and of its
incalculable wealth, they must have described its commerce, the
source, to a very considerable extent, of its greatness. For
centuries it had been the emporium of the trade of India, Arabia,
and Africa. This, and its position in the supposed extreme south,
to Homer’s mind, connected it with the outer, world-surrounding
ocean. What was told to him, and to his contemporaries, of the
tides and monsoons of the Indian Ocean, suggested to them, and
most aptly, only the idea of a stream. They heard of tides on the
Atlantic also; hence his mighty stream of circum-ambient ocean.
As to the trade of Thebes, all international wholesale trade in
those times, and in that part of the world, was carried on in the
courts and sacred enclosures of temples. The greatness of the
temples was, in some measure, an indication of the greatness of
the trade. The great festivals were, in substance, only great fairs.
Trade was then under the guardianship of Religion. Society was
not yet sufficiently organized for the protection of trade: for such a
purpose the civil power could hardly as yet be said to exist.
Religion alone had either the wisdom, or the power, to enforce fair
dealing, or to ward off violence. At the season, therefore, that the
great annual caravans arrived from the interior, and the easterly
monsoons wafted the merchandise and products of Arabia and
India to Egypt, to be bartered for those of Africa (and the
caravans were doubtless so arranged as that their arrival
synchronized with that of the ocean-borne traffic), there were
great processions and feasts at the temples. Religion then put on
its most imposing aspect. We have now only to recall the number