"THE ENGLISH HERITAGE."

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19813, 28 December 1929, Page 11

"THE ENGLISH HERITAGE."

A FURTHER CONSIDERA- | TION. J ! '.SfECIALLY WKITTIV TO*t TBS FKESS I [Br Ctra.vo] The word '•English'' r a uses a good deal of trouble. Whenever anyone u»cs it to dev.-ribe something that is portly Sotti-h or Irish or WeUh, someone else rises up to know why tiie English arrogate everything to themselves, and why '-British'' is not used. The difficulty has, its tpev!.;] aspects in a new land like this, whore English. Scots, Welsh, and Irish have combined to make a nation. If you refer to .New Zealand as the product of English influences you are apt to he renui'ded. among other things, that John Bnllanrc was Irish, and John Mckenzie and Sir Robert stout. Scottish. Theie is. however, a distinct English influence and heritage, though it is not always possible to sav ! just whore the use of ''English'' should I stop and "British" begin. Many of j us arc apt to forget—some of »i-, indeed, have never learnt—that the ] predominant influence in the building' of the British Empire in general, and the making of New Zealand in particular, has been English. To say that "While the Celt is talking from Valencia to Kirkwall, the English. ;li. tlie English, don't say anything: at ail." is not quite true; the English bar a good deal at times. I believe it" to be true, however, that England, (.specially in recent years, has not had the credit that is her due as bv far the strongest partner in the Imperial firm and the source of most of British culture and British institutions. These reflections, are induced by a study of the first four volumes of the ''English Heritage" series, which were reviewed on this page a fortnight ago. I must say that when I read that this i-eries was-to be published I felt excited. It seemed to me an overdue work, this interpretation of the English heritage and the task had been giv«n to the right men. The joint editors —Lord Lee of Fareham and Mr J. C. Squire—ary discriminating lovers of what is best in England ;' they are ; n the right tradition : and under their direction ,«ueh a series is sure to he comprehensive, illuminating, well and brightly written, and inoffensive to other parts of the British Isles, fit was Lord I.ee, by the way, who presented to the nation, for the use of Prime Ministers, the beautiful country seat of Chequers. Mr Squire has saved the country round Stonehenge for the nation, and is busv saving other parts of rural England.) The first four volumes, as the review made plain, are quite up to the high expectations aroused. In supplementing what was written there, I should like first to ask what is the "English Heritage,'' and to answer that it is compounded of many elements, such as love of freedom, love of the most beautiful of countrysides, love of animals, good humour, kindliness, a passion for moderation, ideals of chivalry, a strong ethical and religious bent, and a glorious literature. The heritage is ancient, and has. been a:i Mr Baldwin says in his introduction, much of it is changing before this generation's eyes. Here is a vivid picture (by a man who welcomes the opportunity of speaking of England "without hearing the acidulated suggestion" that he should say "British") of the still unspoiled rural England:

I could show you many a ten or twenty miles of road in England where every turn opens out a fresh picture to make you drawin your breath with sheer delight where the roadside timber is yet undisturbed, and where the black-and-white cottage at the bend, with its garden scented with gilliflowers, makes an awkward corner for the motorist: and here and there the little inn even as it was when Glutton met Peronel of Flanders in the days when Langfand lay on the slopes of Malvern Hill. And even now when the cider is growing warm m chma mugs on the hobs in the inner parlour, some bowman in his long journey home -rom Agincourt or some pikeman from Haseby would find there the same kindly company, the same broad speech, the same 'wise, tolerant native humour of that world in which hj« was born.

It is one of the paradoxes of England and the English that the nation that was foremost in the industrial revolution, and that in the process produced, in the name of progress, perhaps the largest and most depressing collections of urban hideou'sness ever made by man, should retain a passionate love of the country. This shines from the pages of Erie Parker's "English Wild Life." Of the first four volumes of the series this is likely to be the least interesting to colonials as a body, though I ean see New Zealand nature -lovers—some of these, for example, who are working to save our bird life from destruction— revelling in it. The book is in the best English tradition, not only of this love, but of intimate understanding of plant and animal. The poetry that informs "Reynard the Fox," by John Masefield. is expressed here in prose. Mr Parker belongs to what may be called the humanitarian ' school of nature lovers; he has strong affiliations with Ralph Hodgson, who champions "wretched blind pit ponies, and little hunted hares." He writes of deerstalking like a poet, but he will never again Jift a rifle to a stag. How significant is his readiness to find beauty 1 everywhere! He remembers his first days under canvas on Salisbury Plain, when he "woke in the mornings to find crows' foot and harebells nodding within his reach, and looked out through the tent-door to watch sheep filing by harrows on the skyline, and listened to bugles blowing in the blue morning air." I wonder how many New Zealand soldiers who lived there find such things as potent in their memories as the cold, the bleakness and the mud. An English reviewer says of Mr Bernard Darwin's book on the Public School that the most unhappy things about that institution are "the intellectual character of its eulogists" and that "most of its assailants are men who would have been more nearly tolerable if they had been to one." This hard saying illustrates Mr Darwin's difficulties. It is not only that the public school is the centre of fierce controversy, but that praise of the virtues of the system is discouraged by these very virtues. To the fine product of the English publie school—and there is no sner product anywhere—to lay publie emphasis on the value of the public school spirit must be rather like proclaiming the virtues of one's own family. No doubt the public school deserves to flourish, says the critic I have quoted, but in dead silence. The influence of the public school, however, has gone to the ends of the earth. It has helped the English to govern India with a handful of white men and it has served as a model for schools all over the Empire. While critics rage against it and demand the razing of all such schools, and the sowing of the sites with salt, there are foreigners who envy the English such institutions. The number of Englishmen actually moulded by the public school system is relatively* verv small. Mr Darwin, it is amusing to 1 note, refers in his prcfaee to "the ordinary person" having been at such a school. Of eourse, "the ordinary person" has not. What Mr Darwin "reallv has In mind is that men of his class have been to publie schools. But the leaven is there, and it has leavened a targe lump*! Mr Darwin, however, does j not regard the virtues of the system as something apart. They are virtues j eommon to th« English people, and not

of one class. The pnHic school turns, oat men well able "to tackle a lonely job in a strange country amongst ■trange people," but the war showed that men without public school training had the same ability, the same genuine "kindliness, cheerfulness, and re- j ■oujee. Mr Darwin had a sergeant iu j Macedonia who managed the "natives admirably by amcans of these qualities. It is the s.tme m sport. The public school "-"->;.- it charged with thinking too niucli about games, but tin's is" a national. not a class trait. The main difference between the Saturday attornoon 1 oi'tbnll habitue and the public school product is that the latter is !es« inclined to hoot the referee. The public school exhibits both the genius and irie stupidity of the whole people. The heritage of good humour forms the bridge between Mi Darwin's book I and Mr J B. Priestley's '-English Humour." The public school tradition is supposed to teach men to lose with a smile and win without a boast. Part of the essential soul of F.tiglisn humour is good humour, expressing itself in fine weather of the sou!, or in kindlv laughter. Many • foreigners regard the English as melancholy and morose, but Mr Priestley explains this by the essentia! fact that England is a' laud of privacy. In some other countries gaietv tends to be public, but the English" put fences round their lives, and their humour is often the product of an intense individualism. In English life humour counts mueii more than wit. and of course humour is much the higher quality It is another paradox of the English that thev are great materialists and yet have produced the largest bodv o! great poetry in the modern world. H is one of the many virtues of Mr Priestlev's delightful book that he connects English humour and Eng i»n poetrv. In the huge figure? of English humour such as Falstaff and Mtcawber we see something that transcends realitv. Thev are more real than' tea! life: they possess a vitalitv that can come <>»iy from the world of imagination. Even that superb creation of high oomet.y, Mr Collins, in "Pride and Prejudice, has .something; of this imaginative glory about him. The extraordinary passion of his snobbery makes him a "glorious simpleton." 'and lifts him' into the region of the poetical. 1 lie English, too. as Mr Priestley points out so well, have ahvavs loved clowns. Shakespeare gave them what they wanted, and to-day Charles Chaplin conquers a new world with the old tradition. Chaplin is a Cockney droll, and in his art laughter anil tears are mingled. There is in him. too. the heart of a child, and the world of the child is a large part of English humour. Some time ago The Pres* drew attention to an article in one of the English reviews in which 51. Cammaert«. the Belgian poet, emphasised the importance of the child and nonstn=e elements in English literature. The English, he said, were the only people who liked nonsense fruits own sake. He showed how the«e two unworldly elements are potent in the English literature of to-day, flowing by the side of realism. Mr Priestley, T am particularly interested to note' cites this illuminating article by a foreign critic. Nonsense is "unreason triumphant." "absurditv carried into a poetical atmosphere." "one of the kingdoms of romance." In "Alice in Wonderland' 1 there is a fairvland nonsense. In Mr Pickwick, on the other hand, there is real life, but there is also a touch of another world. He is a stout fairy with invisible wings. In its nature, nonsense is kindlv and so is the imaginary world of the healthy child. In the realm of English realistic humour, also, kindliness and good humour are predominant qualities. "Punch" exhibits them. "Punch" has weaknesses, and these failings are in part defects of qualities. Good humour becomes insipidity. Mr Priestley charges "Punch" with two faults: a lack of ideas and snobbery (both national weaknesses), and one may be a warm admirer of "Punch" and yet admit that the criticism is just. "Punch," I think, could be improved by a broader social outlook and a more critical attitude towards such jokes as errors in classical quotations. It is still a priceless jewel, but there are flaws. How strongly it still represents the-Eng-lish tradition of good humour may be seen by comparing it with American "Life" or the "Bulletin." The tradition comes down from Chaucer and Shakespeare, and both Mr John Bailey, the author of the volume on Shakespeare, and Mr Priestley emphasise the essential Englishness of Shakespeare. He was a universal genius, but he was English, as English as the English wood that does duty for an Athenian scene in "A Midsummer Night's Dream," as English as the English Dogberry officiating in a Sicilian town. Mr Bailey sums him up as "rich in freedom and imagination, the admitted gift of English poetry, rich in common sense, the admitted gift of the English mind; a man of free and varied life and generous sympathies with all sorts of men and women; a believer in order and discipline .... a lover of the country, country ways, and countrj' sports; a practical man with an eye to wealth and position; to his casual acquaintances a hearty, kindly, friendly, humorous, but also shrewd and sensible man; to his intimate friends a wit and a genius; to himself, in his lonely hours, a thinker of some of the profoundest thoughts that have ever passed through the human soul."

The last word shall be Mr Priestley's, and it is a very good last word. Shakespeare, he says, crowns the list of English humourists, "men who have not lent their wits to an inquisition but have laughed out of the depths of their affections It would be better for us to be once more a small outlandish people and yet to be renowned for this spirit than to bestride the earth and lose our laughter in gloom, suspicion, or hate." English humour is a heritage and a trust. This contains a profound truth. It may come that the world will be saved by such humour. How much kindly humour is there in Russia to-day, or in Italy!