PDA

View Full Version : Chesterton on the Irish


Basil Fawlty
10-28-2009, 11:51 AM
It's very rare that an Englishman "gets" the Irish, G.K. Chesterton though, was one of them.
XIII. Celts and Celtophiles

Science in the modern world has many uses; its chief use, however, is to provide long words to cover the errors of the rich. The word "kleptomania" is a vulgar example of what I mean. It is on a par with that strange theory, always advanced when a wealthy or prominent person is in the dock, that exposure is more of a punishment for the rich than for the poor. Of course, the very reverse is the truth. Exposure is more of a punishment for the poor than for the rich. The richer a man is the easier it is for him to be a tramp. The richer a man is the easier it is for him to be popular and generally respected in the Cannibal Islands. But the poorer a man is the more likely it is that he will have to use his past life whenever he wants to get a bed for the night. Honour is a luxury for aristocrats, but it is a necessity for hall-porters. This is a secondary matter, but it is an example of the general proposition I offer--the proposition that an enormous amount of modern ingenuity is expended on finding defences for the indefensible conduct of the powerful. As I have said above, these defences generally exhibit themselves most emphatically in the form of appeals to physical science. And of all the forms in which science, or pseudo-science, has come to the rescue of the rich and stupid, there is none so singular as the singular invention of the theory of races.

When a wealthy nation like the English discovers the perfectly patent fact that it is making a ludicrous mess of the government of a poorer nation like the Irish, it pauses for a moment in consternation, and then begins to talk about Celts and Teutons. As far as I can understand the theory, the Irish are Celts and the English are Teutons. Of course, the Irish are not Celts any more than the English are Teutons. I have not followed the ethnological discussion with much energy, but the last scientific conclusion which I read inclined on the whole to the summary that the English were mainly Celtic and the Irish mainly Teutonic. But no man alive, with even the glimmering of a real scientific sense, would ever dream of applying the terms "Celtic" or "Teutonic" to either of them in any positive or useful sense.

That sort of thing must be left to people who talk about the Anglo-Saxon race, and extend the expression to America. How much of the blood of the Angles and Saxons (whoever they were) there remains in our mixed British, Roman, German, Dane, Norman, and Picard stock is a matter only interesting to wild antiquaries. And how much of that diluted blood can possibly remain in that roaring whirlpool of America into which a cataract of Swedes, Jews, Germans, Irishmen, and Italians is perpetually pouring, is a matter only interesting to lunatics. It would have been wiser for the English governing class to have called upon some other god. All other gods, however weak and warring, at least boast of being constant. But science boasts of being in a flux for ever; boasts of being unstable as water.

And England and the English governing class never did call on this absurd deity of race until it seemed, for an instant, that they had no other god to call on. All the most genuine Englishmen in history would have yawned or laughed in your face if you had begun to talk about Anglo-Saxons. If you had attempted to substitute the ideal of race for the ideal of nationality, I really do not like to think what they would have said. I certainly should not like to have been the officer of Nelson who suddenly discovered his French blood on the eve of Trafalgar. I should not like to have been the Norfolk or Suffolk gentleman who had to expound to Admiral Blake by what demonstrable ties of genealogy he was irrevocably bound to the Dutch. The truth of the whole matter is very simple. Nationality exists, and has nothing in the world to do with race. Nationality is a thing like a church or a secret society; it is a product of the human soul and will; it is a spiritual product. And there are men in the modern world who would think anything and do anything rather than admit that anything could be a spiritual product.

A nation, however, as it confronts the modern world, is a purely spiritual product. Sometimes it has been born in independence, like Scotland. Sometimes it has been born in dependence, in subjugation, like Ireland. Sometimes it is a large thing cohering out of many smaller things, like Italy. Sometimes it is a small thing breaking away from larger things, like Poland. But in each and every case its quality is purely spiritual, or, if you will, purely psychological. It is a moment when five men become a sixth man. Every one knows it who has ever founded a club. It is a moment when five places become one place. Every one must know it who has ever had to repel an invasion. Mr. Timothy Healy, the most serious intellect in the present House of Commons, summed up nationality to perfection when he simply called it something for which people will die, As he excellently said in reply to Lord Hugh Cecil, "No one, not even the noble lord, would die for the meridian of Greenwich." And that is the great tribute to its purely psychological character. It is idle to ask why Greenwich should not cohere in this spiritual manner while Athens or Sparta did. It is like asking why a man falls in love with one woman and not with another.

Now, of this great spiritual coherence, independent of external circumstances, or of race, or of any obvious physical thing, Ireland is the most remarkable example. Rome conquered nations, but Ireland has conquered races. The Norman has gone there and become Irish, the Scotchman has gone there and become Irish, the Spaniard has gone there and become Irish, even the bitter soldier of Cromwell has gone there and become Irish. Ireland, which did not exist even politically, has been stronger than all the races that existed scientifically. The purest Germanic blood, the purest Norman blood, the purest blood of the passionate Scotch patriot, has not been so attractive as a nation without a flag. Ireland, unrecognized and oppressed, has easily absorbed races, as such trifles are easily absorbed. She has easily disposed of physical science, as such superstitions are easily disposed of. Nationality in its weakness has been stronger than ethnology in its strength. Five triumphant races have been absorbed, have been defeated by a defeated nationality.

This being the true and strange glory of Ireland, it is impossible to hear without impatience of the attempt so constantly made among her modern sympathizers to talk about Celts and Celticism. Who were the Celts? I defy anybody to say. Who are the Irish? I defy any one to be indifferent, or to pretend not to know. Mr. W. B. Yeats, the great Irish genius who has appeared in our time, shows his own admirable penetration in discarding altogether the argument from a Celtic race. But he does not wholly escape, and his followers hardly ever escape, the general objection to the Celtic argument. The tendency of that argument is to represent the Irish or the Celts as a strange and separate race, as a tribe of eccentrics in the modern world immersed in dim legends and fruitless dreams. Its tendency is to exhibit the Irish as odd, because they see the fairies. Its trend is to make the Irish seem weird and wild because they sing old songs and join in strange dances. But this is quite an error; indeed, it is the opposite of the truth. It is the English who are odd because they do not see the fairies. It is the inhabitants of Kensington who are weird and wild because they do not sing old songs and join in strange dances. In all this the Irish are not in the least strange and separate, are not in the least Celtic, as the word is commonly and popularly used. In all this the Irish are simply an ordinary sensible nation, living the life of any other ordinary and sensible nation which has not been either sodden with smoke or oppressed by money-lenders, or otherwise corrupted with wealth and science. There is nothing Celtic about having legends. It is merely human. The Germans, who are (I suppose) Teutonic, have hundreds of legends, wherever it happens that the Germans are human. There is nothing Celtic about loving poetry; the English loved poetry more, perhaps, than any other people before they came under the shadow of the chimney-pot and the shadow of the chimney-pot hat. It is not Ireland which is mad and mystic; it is Manchester which is mad and mystic, which is incredible, which is a wild exception among human things. Ireland has no need to play the silly game of the science of races; Ireland has no need to pretend to be a tribe of visionaries apart. In the matter of visions, Ireland is more than a nation, it is a model nation.

Petr
10-28-2009, 12:02 PM
Nationality is a thing like a church or a secret society; it is a product of the human soul and will; it is a spiritual product. And there are men in the modern world who would think anything and do anything rather than admit that anything could be a spiritual product.
An apt observation about materialist reductionism.

Jose Ortega y Gasset in his Revolt of the Masses discussed in detail how greatly Western "nationalism" differs from mere primitive tribalism (that does depend first and foremost on physical blood ties). He used a Christian theological term "hypostatic union" to describe the mystical union of individual and nation.

And yet, IMHO Chesterton sound a bit too race-denialist for my taste. We have in later days seen many less agreeable anti-racists smugly denying the importance of physical racial ties with their "propositional nation" jargon and ethnic nominalism, and thus it leaves a somewhat bad taste to mouth to see Chesterton using the same line of argumentation, although in a more innocent manner.


Petr

Errigal
10-28-2009, 04:40 PM
It is the English who are odd because they do not see the fairies. It is the inhabitants of Kensington who are weird and wild because they do not sing old songs and join in strange dances. In all this the Irish are not in the least strange and separate, are not in the least Celtic, as the word is commonly and popularly used. In all this the Irish are simply an ordinary sensible nation, living the life of any other ordinary and sensible nation which has not been either sodden with smoke or oppressed by money-lenders, or otherwise corrupted with wealth and science. There is nothing Celtic about having legends. It is merely human.

This is what quite a few people have had in mind when they described Britain as the country of the future in just as much a negative as a positive sense. Money as the measure of all things, utilitarianism etc. Other countries who want to modify or soften the full-blast Manchester Liberal model are castigated for deviationism by The Economist or IMF.


An apt observation about materialist reductionism.

Jose Ortega y Gasset in his Revolt of the Masses discussed in detail how greatly Western "nationalism" differs from mere primitive tribalism (that does depend first and foremost on physical blood ties). He used a Christian theological term "hypostatic union" to describe the mystical union of individual and nation.

....

I'm not sure how accurate this is. I don't think Ortega y Gasset would be dismissive of tribe as a social unit nor would he speak of mystical unions. He was very clearly skeptical of that sort of Romantic Nationalism and goes into detail in questioning it.

The State-enterprises of the ancients, by the very fact that they did not
imply the close adherence of the human groups among whom they were
launched by the very fact that the State properly so-called was
always circumscribed by its necessary limitation- tribe or city- such
enterprises were practically themselves limitless. A people- Persia,
Macedonia, Rome- might reduce to a unit of sovereignty any and every
portion of the planet. As the unity was not a genuine one, internal
and definitive, it remained subject to no conditions other than the
military and administrative efficiency of the conqueror. But in the
West unification into nations has had to follow an inexorable series
of stages. We ought to be more surprised than we are at the fact that
in Europe there has not been possible any Empire of the extent
reached by those of the Persians, of Alexander and of Augustus.
The creative process of nations in Europe has always followed this
rhythm:
First movement.- The peculiar Western instinct which causes the
State to be felt as the fusion of various peoples in a unity of
political and moral existence, starts by acting on the groups most
proximate geographically, ethnically, and linguistically. Not that
this proximity is the basis of the nation, but because diversity
amongst neighbours is easier to overcome.
Second movement.- A period of consolidation in which other peoples
outside the new State are regarded as strangers and more or less
enemies. This is the period when the nationalising process adopts an
air of exclusiveness, of shutting itself up inside the State; in a
word, what to-day we call nationalism. But the fact is that whilst
the others are felt politically to be strangers and opponents, there
is economic, intellectual, and moral communion with them. Nationalist
wars serve to level out the differences of technical and mental
processes. Habitual enemies gradually become historically
homogeneous. Little by little there appears on the horizon the
consciousness that those enemy peoples belong to the same human
circle as our own State. Nevertheless, they are still looked on as foreigners and hostile.
Third movement.- The State is in the enjoyment of full
consolidation. Then the new enterprise offers itself to unite those
peoples who yesterday were enemies. The conviction grows that they
are akin to us in morals and interests, and that together we form a
national group over against other more distant, stranger groups. Here
we have the new national idea arrived at maturity.
An example will make clear what I am trying to say. It is the
custom to assert that in the time of the Cid * (Rodrigo de Bivar, ca. 1040-1099)
Spain (Spania) was already a national idea, and to give more weight to the theory it is
added that centuries previously St. Isidore was already speaking of
"Mother Spain." To my mind, this is a crass error of historical
perspective. In the time of the Cid the Leon-Castile State was in
process of formation, and this unity between the two was the national
idea of the time, the politically efficacious idea. Spania, on the
other hand, was a mainly erudite notion; in any case, one of many
fruitful notions sown in the West by the Roman Empire. The
"Spaniards" had been accustomed to be linked together by Rome in an
administrative unity, as a diocesis of the Late Empire. But this
geographical-administrative notion was a matter of mere acceptation
from without, not an inspiration from within, and by no manner of
means an aspiration towards the future.

However much reality one may wish to allow to this idea in the XIth
Century, it will be recognised that it does not even reach the vigour
and precision which the idea of Hellas had for the Greek s of the
IVth. And yet, Hellas was never a true national idea. The appropriate
historical comparison would be rather this: Hellas was for the Greeks
of the IVth Century, and Spania for the "Spaniards" of the XIth and even of the XIVth, what Europe was for XIXth-Century "Europeans."

Chapter 9 Revolt of the Masses