THE ENGLISHMAN.

Dunstan Times, Issue 3355, 3 January 1927, Page 8

THE ENGLISHMAN.

1 About fifteen ’hundred;.years ago Sidouius Apolliiiaris describes our anees- ; tors, the Saxons, as lie had seen them, writes the Rev. Dean Inge in the ‘ ‘ Sun- ? day Express.'’ ’ Their long hair fell ’ over their foreheads; their faces wore painted blue 1 ; they were turbulent and ! independent, so that “you might imag- . ine that every oarsman was the archpirate.” Nevertheless, when by important \ business was on. hand, they submitted ’ to discipline. The Anglo-Saxons made a rather poor show against the Nor mans, and for two hundred years sub- , mitted to be treated as a conquered c nation; but when they asserted themi, selves again they showed the, same i characteristics — sturdy independence, i stubborn obstinacy, and rather groat > habits.' ; . A fourteenth-century writer says that - .“ they-are more prone to gluttony than i other' men, and more costly in meal ' and drink, and clothing.” A French- ' man in the reign of Charles 11. reports • that the English may easily be brought • to Anything, provided you fill their bellies, let them have freedom of speech, > and do not bear too hard upon their • lazy temper.” An xtalian diplomatist about the 1 same lime says’ that “the English arc 1 by nature proud and phlegmatic. They 1 consider a long time before they come , te a decision, but, having once decided, their resolution is irrevocable, and j they maintain their opinion with the greatest obstinacy.” ; As for their, gluttony, a, Bohemian r baron Was privileged to watch. Queen j Elizabeth eating her dinner. “The . women and maids who served her at - table knelt as long as she ate, and she - afe for nearly three hours,” Nearly : a hundred years before this the Lon:doners were “ magnificently apparelled ; and.extn.nuely proud and overbearing.” • -‘A y.oemaa arrayoti) himself as a 1 squir-e, a squire as a knight, a knight l as a duke, and a duke as a king.” 1 • Englishmen,” says Froissart, “are so proud that they set no store by any ' nation except their own.” 1 Bveu Defoe admits that the English are “the most churlish people alive to foreigners, - so that all men think an Englishman the devil.” Mark Twain ’ thought that he had observed this pride, and also our vigorous disclaimers of it. “-The; English,”- lie says, . “arc. mentioned in the Bible; the meek shall possess ihc earth.” . Another old dim acteristic of the Eng- [ lisli is their love of games. In Chambe.rlayue's “Angliae Nothin" (1660) wt read that “The common people will endure Jong and hard labour, insomuch that alter , twelve hours', hard work they will go in the evening to foot hall, stockball, cricket, | prison-base, wrestling, cudgel playing, or > some suchlike vehement exercise for their recreation'.” This Jove of games was apparent before the seventeenth century, but the Covoviiinenl tried to put down these amusements, because they drew the young i men away from the archery butts. , How many of my readers have noticed .the furrows scored on the walls of bur old churches; It was there that our famous English archers used to sharpen their arrows, which could, pin a mail-clad knight to his saddle,or pierce through helmet and head. But no laws, could keep the Englishman from his games. Cricket lias been one of our best instructors in fair play • and team-work, I “That is not cricket” is a saying which ■ means a great deal to an Englishman; it i would have been better fur the character of certain of our foreign deals if they had learned ii'oin ns to play our national game. Ail through our history we may trace (lie idea of a gentleman, that lay religion 1 of the English nation on week days. It has sometimes been partly defaced by class prejudices, and Ivy a fictitious association with heraldry or property in land; but it is as a national ideal.- quite distinctive, ami it fias been the. root of nearly all that - is admirable in the English character. “The English, ' said Ronai; Law. “are . a generous people. 1 can say this because 1 am not an Englishman.' From all these testimonies, and . from scores of others which might he quoted, there emerges a fairly clear impression of the national 'character. \ The typical Englishman is an independent fellow, easy to lead but bad to drive, very tenacious of his rights, pugnacious,’ ’out not at all military, lazy and telf-hi-dtdgenl by nature, but capable of great exertion and pertinacity in pursuit of particular ends, openhaiuled and generous—not a good .-hop-keeper, in spite of what Napoleon and others have said, but a good colonist and pioneer-truthful and honourable, kindly and singularly mivindietive. Perhaps he is too proud of being an Englishman, and sometimes boastful to foreigners. Foreign testimonies seem to be unanimous on tin's point; but now, at any rate, we are modes! and bumble compared with (he Americans. Our habit of self, disparagement. which is .also an oid characteristic, is much mere in evidence than undue .self-complacency. Is this character changing? Has the industrial revolution, which seems to have divided the nation into hostile camps, brought .into existence a large population who have not learned the national traditions, who have no love for their country, and what it stands for, who are. in a word, un-English in character? Professor George Santayana, formerly of Harvard, who lias lived for several years in England, sees decided signs of change in the character of the working men. “Their forced unanimity in action and passion is lik' that of the ages of faith. Its inspiration comes from a few apostles, perhaps foreign Jews, who at the beginning had. visions of some millennium ; cohesion is maintained afterwards by preaching by custom, by persecution, and by murder. It is -astonishing with what docility masses of Englishmen, supposed lo be jealous of their personal liberty, will obey a revolutionary junta which taxes and commands them, and decrees when they shall starve and when they shall fight.” This was written before recent developments. which have shown the terrible truth of the writer's fears. “Britons never shall be slaves”-now sounds like a mockery; a large part of the population are slaves, and such docile slaves that we tun' doubt whether they would protest if Mr Cook laid a. whip across their hacks. Equally un-English is the defeatist atmosphere, the feeling of hopelessness which paralyses the energies of those who love their country and are opposed to revolution. We complimented ourselves on our patience and good humour during the general strike. There was a time when the Englishman would .have been ueither patient nor good-humoured under such an outrage, and when strike-monger-mg would have been a dangerous trade for the conspirators. The attitude of Londoners during that shameful fortnight was painfully suggestive of a drove of sheen. “Elderly people have always talked like that : your children don’t agree with you.” Well, that is very true; and we may remember that 'Wordsworth, who was not elderly in 1802. used much the same language about his country at a-time when, as we now think, it was making a magnificent stand against the greatest general of all time. ’ “Plain living and high thinking are no more; the homely beautv of the good old cause is gone; our peace .our fearful innocence. and pure religion breathing household laws.” If Wordsworth, when ho wrote these words, forgot the part which England was taking in the Napoleonic War, we ought not to forget what our countrymen did in the Great War. A £

really decadent nation Would not have survived that ordeal. I repeat these things to myself; but the ominous symptoms will stare mo in the face. Ido not recognise the old English character; in my countrymen to-day. J