ESSAY II.

INDEPENDENCE.

THERE is an illusory and unattainable independence which is a mere dream, but there is also a reasonable and attainable independence not really inconsistent with our obligations to humanity and our country.

The dependence of the individual upon the race has never been so fully recognised as now, so that there is little fear of its being overlooked. The danger of our age and of the future is rather that a reasonable and possible independence should be made needlessly difficult to attain and to preserve.

The distinction between the two may be conveniently illustrated by a reference to literary production. Every educated man is dependent upon his own country for the language that he uses; and again, that language is itself dependent on other languages from which it is derived; and further, the modern author is indebted for a continual stimulus and many a suggestion to the writings of his predecessors, not in his own country only, but in far distant lands. He cannot, therefore, say in any absolute way, "My books are my own," but he may preserve a certain mental independence which will allow him to say that with truth in a relative sense. If he expresses himself such as he is, an idiosyncrasy

affected but not annihilated by education, he may say that his books are his own.

Few English authors have studied past literature more willingly than Shelley and Tennyson, and none are more original. In these cases idiosyncrasy has been affected by education, but instead of being annihilated thereby it has gained from education the means of expressing its own inmost self more clearly. We have the true Shelley, the born Tennyson, far more perfectly than we should ever have possessed them if their own minds had not been opened by the action of other minds. Culture is like wealth—it makes us more ourselves, it enables us to express ourselves. The real nature of the poor and the ignorant is an obscure and doubtful problem, for we can never know the inborn powers that remain in them undeveloped till they die. In this way the help of the race, so far from being unfavourable to individuality, is necessary to it. Claude helped Turner to become Turner. In complete isolation from art, however magnificently surrounded by the beauties of the natural world, a man does not express his originality as a landscape painter; he is simply incapable of expressing anything in paint.

But now let us inquire whether there may not be cases in which the labours of others, instead of helping originality to express itself, act as a check to it by making originality superfluous.

As an illustration of this possibility I may take the modern railway system. Here we have the labour and ingenuity of the race applied to travelling, greatly to the convenience of the individual, but in a manner which is totally repressive of originality and indifferent to personal

tastes. People of the most different idiosyncrasies travel exactly in the same way. The landscape painter is hurried at speed past beautiful spots that he would like to contemplate at leisure, the archaeologist is whirled by the site of a Roman camp that he would willingly pause to examine, the mountaineer is not permitted to climb the tunnelled hill, nor the swimmer to cross in his own refreshing natural way the breadth of the iron-spanned river. And as individual tastes are disregarded, so individual powers are left uncultivated and unimproved. The only talent required is that of sitting passively on a seat and of enduring, for hours together, an unpleasant though mitigated vibration. The skill and courage of the horseman, the endurance of the pedestrian, the art of the paddler or the oarsman, are all made superfluous by this system of travelling by machines in which previous labours of engineers and mechanics have determined everything beforehand. Happily, the love of exercise and enterprise has produced a reaction of individualism against this levelling railway system, a reaction that shows itself in many kinds of slower but more adventurous locomotion, and restores to the individual creature his lost independence by allowing him to pause and stop when he pleases, a reaction delightful to him, especially in this, that it gives him some pride and pleasure in the use of his own muscles and his own wits. There are still, happily, Englishmen who would rather steer a cutter across the Channel in rough weather than be shot through a long hole in the chalk.

What the railway is to physical motion settled conventions are to the movements of the mind. Convention is a contrivance for facilitating what we write or speak,

by which we are relieved from personal effort, and almost absolved from personal responsibility. There are men whose whole art of living consists in passing from one conventionalism to another, as a traveller changes his train. Such men may be envied for the skill with which they avoid the difficulties of life. They take their religion, their politics, their education, their social and literary opinions, all as provided by the brains of others, and they glide through existence with a minimum of personal exertion. For those who are satisfied with easy conventional ways, the desire for intellectual independence is unintelligible. What is the need of it? Why go, mentally, on a bicycle or in a canoe by your own toilsome exertions when you may sit so very comfortably in the train, a rug round your lazy legs, and your softly-capped head in a corner?

The French ideal of "good form " is to be undistinguishable from others, by which it is not understood that you are to be undistinguishable from the multitude of poor people, but one of the smaller crowd of rich and fashionable people. Independence and originality are so little esteemed in what is called "good society in France that the adjectives "indépendant" and “original" are constantly used in a bad sense. "Il est très indépendant," often means that the man is of a rude, insubordinate, rebellious temper, unfitting him for social life. "Il est original," or more contemptuously, "c'est un original," means that the subject of the criticism has views of his own which are not the fashionable views, and which, therefore (whatever may be their accuracy), are proper objects of well-bred ridicule.

I cannot imagine any state of feeling more destructive

of all interest in human intercourse than this, for if, on going into society, I am only to hear the fashionable. opinions and sentiments, what is the gain to me who know them too well already? I could even repeat them quite accurately with the proper conventional tone, so why put myself to inconvenience to hear that dull and wearisome play acted over again? The only possible explanation of the pleasure that French people of some rank appear to take in hearing things which are as stale as they are inaccurate, repeated by every one they know, is that the repetition of them appears to be one of the signs of gentility, and to give alike to those who utter them and to those who hear the profound satisfaction of feeling that they are present at the mysterious rites of caste.

There is probably no place in the whole world where the feeling of mental independence is so complete as it is in London. There is no place where differences of opinion are more marked in character or more frank and open in expression; but what strikes one as particularly admirable in London is that in the present day (it has not always been so) men of the most opposite opinions and the most various tastes can profess their opinions and indulge their tastes without inconvenient consequences to themselves, and there is hardly any opinion, or any eccentricity, that excludes a man from pleasant social intercourse if he does not make himself impossible and intolerable by bad manners. This independence gives a savour to social intercourse in London that is lamentably wanting to it elsewhere. There is a strange and novel pleasure (to one who lives habitually in the country) in hearing men and women