Lord Salisbury and Europe ca. 1860 

Lord Salisbury and Europe ca. 1860

I got the papers graded for my course, so naturally I've taken on even more reading. I'm going to have to remember some due dates: I borrowed the Lou Cannon book on Reagan from the public library, and this new one from the University. Generally books I borrow on my faculty card are not due until the end of the school year; I guess the books that belong to specific colleges, with smaller libraries, have tighter timelines.

I'm more and more convinced that the Third Marquess of Salisbury--Lord Salisbury for short--Prime Minister of Britain (with some interruptions) from 1885 to 1902, was a fine essayist--perhaps the Tory Macaulay. Unfortunately for anyone who appreciates his work, there is not much of it and it is out of print. He basically published essays during the time when he needed to work for a living. He was married and starting a family, and he was waiting to inherit title and fortune from his father. In fact, his father didn't approve of his marriage (although it did the son a lot of good), so the famous Salisbury's income was even less than it might have been. Also he had not yet become party leader, which later took a lot of his time. (His father criticized him for writing in too polemical a tone; he replied in a letter that his father knew better than anyone that he had to make a living).

The essays that were re-printed in 1972 (Paul Smith, ed., Lord Salisbury on Politics, Cambridge) focus on domestic politics. There is good stuff here on Gladstone, on how parliament and parties actually work, and on the personalities and issues of Victorian politics. But there is way too much ranting that it would be a mistake to extend the franchise to more voters. As Smith says, Salisbury sounds almost like a Marxist at times--the "artisans," once they have the vote, will think of themselves more and more as an economic class (I guess Marx would say they'll have class consciousness), and then they'll rise up, or demand everything. In some ways his predictions were quite shrewd--that elections would only become more disgustingly shameless and pandering, for example. Of course we can say the sovereign people force candidates to go through a real test, which often seems different from the test of actually leading; but the test is still often meaningful in showing who succeeds, and who fails.

Salisbury was a leader to the "die hards," but he wasn't really one himself. He was always ready to switch from a position that was clearly not going to succeed--perhaps after taking one thorough beating on principle. He also never kidded himself that the traditions he defended were somehow sacred, or even wiser than the progressive alternatives. He pretty much admitted that they represented a hodge-podge of victories of self-interested groups--if not crimes. As the franchise was extended, there was an assumption that this would help the "left wing" parties--but no one really knew, there was almost nothing in the way of evidence. It turned out the Tory party benefitted for decades.

In general I'm attracted to cynical conservatism. Lord Melbourne was a more amazing case. As a Whig he served in the same coalition, and sometimes the same Cabinet, as "Reformers" who were forerunners of the Liberal party. These colleagues of his were "progressive" in wanting to expand the franchise, end economic protection and move to free trade, and eliminate a lot of the benefits of the Anglican Church. Again and again Melbourne would get to his feet and say he was very impressed with the ideas of these people--often young people. They had obviously given a lot of thought to what they were proposing (he might go through their arguments in detail--he was quite bright). As he drew to a conclusion, however, he would say that unfortunately, radical change always does more harm than good. Surely, the reader thinks, this can't always be true.

Something like this thought arises as one reads Salisbury--although he wasn't as cynical as Melbourne.

Anyways, I've found some more of Salisbury's "great" essays, as compared to his "very good ones." A two-volume set was published in 1905 in both London (John Murray) and New York (E.P. Dutton): "Essays by Robert Marquess of Salisbury." I found the volume called "Biographical" before (Vol. I?); now I've found "Foreign Politics" (Vol II?). They are not easy to find, even in a good university library.

A few highlights for now:

The essay on Poland begins like this:

[blockquote]There are few positions more embarrassing than that of men who hold moderate opinions in regard to questions upon which excitement is running high. They rarely escape a thirdsman's proverbial fate. [My note: I think this means the first-place and third--place finisher have a common interest in stopping the second-place finisher; or, someone tells the conqueror "I sacrificed three times, and always with you in mind," and the conqueror replies "but to another god, not to me."]. They are equally obnoxious to the partisans whom they have left behind, and to the partisans of whose extravagance they fall short. They are regarded by each side as combining the demerits of an antagonist and a deserter. Each party equally despises the lukewarm zeal and time-serving temper which can only take up half a cause. The pursuer of the golden mean must be content with the intrinsic value of the intermediate course that he selects. He will win no human sympathy, and must submit to be cast out as crotchety by every enthusiastic mind. An enemy is more tolerable than a friend who advances to your aid encased in a panoply of 'ifs' and 'buts.' It is still more irritating when the lukewarmness of your ally takes the form of historical precision. Nothing can be more aggravating than, at the moment when men are nerving themselves for a death-grapple with an overwhelming foe, to have their bravery subjected to a pedantic literary criticism, and pared down to the standard of a set of pettifogging facts.[/blockquote]

I can't help thinking there is some relevance to Gulf War II: The War on Terror (tympani: boom boom boom). Up until the sentence about historical precision, this passage (complete with the "golden mean") encapsulates the perspective of the gentleman. As Talleyrand said "surtout, pas de zele." I'm also reminded of a line that I think comes from a professor named Chris Kelly: Students are usually either too political, or not political enough, to be interested in political philosophy.

Salisbury goes on to argue that the Polish aristocrats who are trying to get the British and other people to rally to their defence do not have as noble a history as they claim; and Russia hasn't wronged them as much as they suggest.

Some issues are still contemporary: Catherine of Russia conquered a part of Poland, but it was the "Russian" part that shared her, Russian, "Greek" religion, not the "Roman" one of the Poles. In short, she conquered the Orthodox Ukrainians. In his detailed account of the history, Salisbury recounts that the Poles had tried to force the Ukrainians to become Roman Catholic; any who refused to do so were called schismatics. My friend Alex is a "uniate" Ukrainian Catholic who has explained some of this to me. The Ukrainian Catholics are in communion with Rome, but they have been allowed to maintain many Orthodox traditions. (Maybe the "final step" of allowing uniate Ukrainian Catholics came when the Ukrainians lived under more tolerant Austria, rather than the Poles?) When Alex went to a Catholic high school, it was largely a new world to him, and I gather he was pretty much treated as an outsider. As he says wryly, the message that "uniate" practices are accepted has not fully gotten through. He has a strongly held, somewhat unusual sense of Christendom. It really consists of national churches, that do not necessarily follow the detailed pronouncements of any head office. France has a national church which is Roman Catholic; Britain has one that is not. All Christians have in common their first thousand years or so of history, with lots of saints, creeds and prayers to celebrate together. Even some recent saints can be recognized by all Christians--although Rome insists on a kind of "police court" approach to deciding who has been canonized.

But, as Shelley said, I digress.

Poland had a history of aggression against Russia. It had a constitution that made it prone to anarchy, and had actually extended slavery on its own people at a time when other Western countries were moving to abolish slavery of any kind.

Prussian enters the picture: "The whole history of the kingdom was a history of lawless annexation. It was formed of a territory filched from other races and other Powers, and from no Power so liberally as from Poland. Till a recent period [the princes of Prussia] had been Polish vassals." Prussia and Austria together wanted to partition Poland; so Catherine wanted to protect Russia by taking her share.

Salisbury spends a lot of time on the circumstances in which aggression can more or less be morally justified. These certainly go beyond self-defence of the most immediate, er, "imminent" kind. Even the Prussians and Austrians had some justification for invading Poland--fearing disproportionate influence on the part of Russia.

The next essay, "the Danish Duchies," has more on those nasty Prussians--who more or less became the aggressors in both World War I and World War II.

Salisbury, as usual, defends the wisdom and actions of the participants in the Congress of Vienna of 1815--even though it became fashionable among intellectuals to condemn the Congress as a reactionary backward step. He says that neither Austria nor Prussia were considered much of a threat to anyone in 1815:

[blockquote]The old traditions of Austria, and the heterogeneous character of her empire, were thought to be a sufficient security for her pacific disposition; nor can it be said that that expectation has been disappointed. Prussia and the smaller German Powers had given to the minds of politicians of that date a different and a more humiliating guarantee. Their conduct during the Great War had shown so slender an aptitude for self-defence, that the idea of their attempting conquest was too absurd to be entertained. Nor had their patriotism been of that excitable kind which disposes a nation to incur risk for the sake of glory. [I love that... the old Melbourne or Disraeli spirit of subtle invective]. They had allowed themselves to be tossed from one ruler to another....and all these insults had not spurred them into any serious resistance, until bolder races had broken [Napolean's] power, and had made patriotism comparatively safe. The [German] masses, in 1813, fought well: but it was only after Russia had made their task easy; and it was rather against the will than under the guidance of their natural leaders....the ignominious part which Germany played during the Great [Napoleonic] War had the effect of awakening a national spirit which had never existed before. If it had been directed by moderate and practical men, this movement would have been of great service not only to Germany but to Europe....No one would have ventured to predict that the ambition of a United Germany might be as dangerous to [the] peace [of Europe] as the ambition of France or Russia.[/blockquote]

His Lordship didn't live long enough to see the half of it. I love that; I think it is really great writing.

Return to Main Page

Comments

Add Comment




Search This Site


Syndicate this blog site

Powered by BlogEasy


Free Blog Hosting