BRITISH AND FRENCH

Greymouth Evening Star, 24 July 1930, Page 8

BRITISH AND FRENCH

— A SPANIARD’S ESTIMATE. It happens frequently that when there is a conflict of opinion between the British and French delegates attending an international confeience ,t is attributed to the psychological differences between the two races. Professor Madariaga, who is professor of Spanish studies at Oxford and a member of the Permanent Mandates Commission at Geneva, in an article in the “Spectator,” attributes the divergencies not to a different perspective, but to the different nature of the eye that observes.

“England,” writes Professor Madariaga, “brings to Geneva her empirical habits of mind. This means that England nearly always advocates the minimum of pre- established agreements to meet future contingencies. The empirical mind stretches thus as little as possible along the line of time. But. it limits itself also in that mental dimension of the present which we call breadth. It shrinks from generalisations. Narrow and short-sighted, 1:11.9 Englishman remains firmly attached to the earth or realities and gees forth like a blind man striking tho ground with his stick before he takes a step forward. The Frenchman, on the contrary, comes to Geneva with a mind which Nature and training havo made an aim in itself. He approaches questions as problems, and while the- Englishman is feeling a way out lie has already thought out a solution. . . It would be grotesque to simplify the contrast by saying that tho Englishman is a. will and Iho Frenchman, a mind. Nor, tempting as it is; would it be correct to describe tho Englishman as will using a mind and the French as a mind using a will. The interplay of the two faculties is more subtle than that. It might perhaps be put in this way: mind and will are used by the Englishman with the tempo and characteristics of will; tjy the Frenchman with the tempo and characteristics of mind. This would explain the blunt, concrete, and slow-moving character of English mental contributions to the League; and also the pertinacious, methodical, and logical developments of the French will in Geneva. The parallel is striking, whatever the subject of the political dialogue which may be chosen to illustrate it. ■

“Furthermore, these profound differences of tho English and the French characters as they manifest themselves outward are enriched by their effects on the inner man. For it is obvious lhat the Englishman’s picture of the Englishman and Frenchman's picture of the Frenchman are bound to differ perhaps more profoundly still than their respective views of the outside world. The Englishman does not know himself at all. He is too .well bred to be inquisitive. Ho feels himself, ami quite satisfied that bo is 'all right.’ s every mar: with his record —public school, and so mi—is bound to be. Whatever his empirical mind brings forth is therefore all right also, and this assurance enables him to come forth before the world with the most naively egotistical proposals presented with an impassive. earnest, and sincere face as universal boons. The Frenchman smiles and exclaims: ‘Ah! cet Anglaise!’ Yet his way does not lead to much greater concordance between professions and intentions. His mind is too active and clear not. to know the inlier man well. While the Englishman sees his intentions as nebulae seen in a foggy sky, the Frenchmsv sees his as clear stars, marking the course of his action and thought, fi follows lhat. the Frenchman has all the qualities of the general staff of a gcod army. He plans in advance, calculates his marches, counter-marches ’and strongholds. He defines his aims accurately and proceeds toward them skilfully.

“The result is curiously alike in both cases. The Englishman is always advocating England's interests as if the world were sure to die. but for them and the Frenchman is always proving as mathematical truth the particular principle which happens to fit ai. th.? lime Marianne’s little finger. But the Englishman gives the impression that l:e has more faith, in his position, since he seems less able to invent his argu-

ments, while the Frenchman at times argues so perfectly that, it seems unnecessary to assume that he needs truth to be on his side.”