Project Gutenberg Etext of Mr. Froude's Progress by C. D. Warner
(#25 in our series by Charles Dudley Warner)

Copyright laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check
the laws for your country before redistributing these files!!!

Please take a look at the important information in this header.
We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an
electronic path open for the next readers.

Please do not remove this.

This should be the first thing seen when anyone opens the book.
Do not change or edit it without written permission.  The words
are carefully chosen to provide users with the information they
need about what they can legally do with the texts.


**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**

**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**

*These Etexts Prepared By Hundreds of Volunteers and Donations*

Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts, and
further information is included below.  We need your donations.
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a 501(c)(3).

As of 12/12/00 contributions are only being solicited from people in:
Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana,
Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming.

As the requirements for other states are met,
additions to this list will be made and fund raising
will begin in the additional states.  Please feel
free to ask to check the status of your state.

These donations should be made to:

Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
PMB 113
1739 University Ave.
Oxford, MS 38655


Title: Mr. Froude's Progress

Author: Charles Dudley Warner

Release Date: March, 2002  [Etext #3121]
[Yes, we are about one year ahead of schedule]
[The actual date this file first posted = 01/16/01]

Edition: 10

Language: English

Project Gutenberg Etext of Mr. Froude's Progress by C. D. Warner
******This file should be named cwfpg10.txt or cwfpg10.zip******

Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, cwfpg11.txt
VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, cwfpg10a.txt

This etext was produced by David Widger <widger@cecomet.net>

Project Gutenberg Etexts are usually created from multiple editions,
all of which are in the Public Domain in the United States, unless a
copyright notice is included.  Therefore, we usually do NOT keep any
of these books in compliance with any particular paper edition.

We are now trying to release all our books one year in advance
of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
Please be encouraged to send us error messages even years after
the official publication date.

Please note:  neither this list nor its contents are final till
midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at
Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month.  A
preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
and editing by those who wish to do so.

Most people start at our sites at:
http://gutenberg.net
http://promo.net/pg


Those of you who want to download any Etext before announcement
can surf to them as follows, and just download by date; this is
also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter.

http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext02
or
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext02

Or /etext01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90

Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
as it appears in our Newsletters.


Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)

We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.  The
time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.  This
projected audience is one hundred million readers.  If our value
per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
million dollars per hour this year as we release fifty new Etext
files per month, or 500 more Etexts in 2000 for a total of 3000+
If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
should reach over 300 billion Etexts given away by year's end.

The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext
Files by December 31, 2001.  [10,000 x 100,000,000 = 1 Trillion]
This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.

At our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third
of that goal by the end of 2001, or about 3,333 Etexts unless we
manage to get some real funding.

Something is needed to create a future for Project Gutenberg for
the next 100 years.

We need your donations more than ever!

Presently, contributions are only being solicited from people in:
Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada,
Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming.

As the requirements for other states are met,
additions to this list will be made and fund raising
will begin in the additional states.

These donations should be made to:

Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
PMB 113
1739 University Ave.
Oxford, MS 38655


Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
has been approved as a 501(c)(3) organization by the US Internal
Revenue Service (IRS).  Donations are tax-deductible to the extent
permitted by law.  As the requirements for other states are met,
additions to this list will be made and fund raising will begin in the
additional states.

All donations should be made to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation.  Mail to:

Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
PMB 113
1739 University Avenue
Oxford, MS 38655  [USA]


We need your donations more than ever!

You can get up to date donation information at:

http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html


***

You can always email directly to:

Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>

hart@pobox.com forwards to hart@prairienet.org and archive.org
if your mail bounces from archive.org, I will still see it, if
it bounces from prairienet.org, better resend later on. . . .

We would prefer to send you this information by email.


Example command-line FTP session:

ftp ftp.ibiblio.org
login: anonymous
password: your@login
cd pub/docs/books/gutenberg
cd etext90 through etext99 or etext00 through etext02, etc.
dir [to see files]
get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files]
GET GUTINDEX.??  [to get a year's listing of books, e.g., GUTINDEX.99]
GET GUTINDEX.ALL [to get a listing of ALL books]


**The Legal Small Print**


(Three Pages)

***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START***
Why is this "Small Print!" statement here?  You know: lawyers.
They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from
someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
fault.  So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
disclaims most of our liability to you.  It also tells you how
you can distribute copies of this etext if you want to.

*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT
By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
this "Small Print!" statement.  If you do not, you can receive
a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by
sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
you got it from.  If you received this etext on a physical
medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.

ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etexts,
is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules, set forth
below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext
under the Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.

Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market
any commercial products without permission.

To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable
efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
works.  Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any
medium they may be on may contain "Defects".  Among other
things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
[1] the Project (and any other party you may receive this
etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
time to the person you received it from.  If you received it
on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
copy.  If you received it electronically, such person may
choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
receive it electronically.

THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS".  NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
may have other legal rights.

INDEMNITY
You will indemnify and hold the Project, its directors,
officers, members and agents harmless from all liability, cost
and expense, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following that you do or cause:
[1] distribution of this etext, [2] alteration, modification,
or addition to the etext, or [3] any Defect.

DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by
disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
or:

[1]  Only give exact copies of it.  Among other things, this
     requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
     etext or this "small print!" statement.  You may however,
     if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable
     binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
     including any form resulting from conversion by word
     processing or hypertext software, but only so long as
     *EITHER*:

     [*]  The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
          does *not* contain characters other than those
          intended by the author of the work, although tilde
          (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
          be used to convey punctuation intended by the
          author, and additional characters may be used to
          indicate hypertext links; OR

     [*]  The etext may be readily converted by the reader at
          no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
          form by the program that displays the etext (as is
          the case, for instance, with most word processors);
          OR

     [*]  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
          no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
          etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
          or other equivalent proprietary form).

[2]  Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this
     "Small Print!" statement.

[3]  Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the
     gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
     already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  If you
     don't derive profits, no royalty is due.  Royalties are
     payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
     the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
     legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
     periodic) tax return.  Please contact us beforehand to
     let us know your plans and to work out the details.

WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
public domain etexts, and royalty free copyright licenses.
If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
hart@pobox.com

*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.12.12.00*END*





This etext was produced by David Widger <widger@cecomet.net>





Mr. Froude's Progress

By Charles Dudley Warner




To revisit this earth, some ages after their departure from it, is a
common wish among men.  We frequently hear men say that they would give
so many months or years of their lives in exchange for a less number on
the globe one or two or three centuries from now.  Merely to see the
world from some remote sphere, like the distant spectator of a play which
passes in dumb show, would not suffice.  They would like to be of the
world again, and enter into its feelings, passions, hopes; to feel the
sweep of its current, and so to comprehend what it has become.

I suppose that we all who are thoroughly interested in this world have
this desire.  There are some select souls who sit apart in calm
endurance, waiting to be translated out of a world they are almost tired
of patronizing, to whom the whole thing seems, doubtless, like a cheap
performance.  They sit on the fence of criticism, and cannot for the life
of them see what the vulgar crowd make such a toil and sweat about.  The
prizes are the same dreary, old, fading bay wreaths.  As for the soldiers
marching past, their uniforms are torn, their hats are shocking, their
shoes are dusty, they do not appear (to a man sitting on the fence) to
march with any kind of spirit, their flags are old and tattered, the
drums they beat are barbarous; and, besides, it is not probable that they
are going anywhere; they will merely come round again, the same people,
like the marching chorus in the "Beggar's Opera."  Such critics, of
course, would not care to see the vulgar show over again; it is enough
for them to put on record their protest against it in the weekly
"Judgment Days" which they edit, and by-and-by withdraw out of their
private boxes, with pity for a world in the creation of which they were
not consulted.

The desire to revisit this earth is, I think, based upon a belief, well-
nigh universal, that the world is to make some progress, and that it will
be more interesting in the future than it is now.  I believe that the
human mind, whenever it is developed enough to comprehend its own action,
rests, and has always rested, in this expectation.  I do not know any
period of time in which the civilized mind has not had expectation of
something better for the race in the future.  This expectation is
sometimes stronger than it is at others; and, again, there are always
those who say that the Golden Age is behind them.  It is always behind or
before us; the poor present alone has no friends; the present, in the
minds of many, is only the car that is carrying us away from an age of
virtue and of happiness, or that is perhaps bearing us on to a time of
ease and comfort and security.

Perhaps it is worth while, in view of certain recent discussions, and
especially of some free criticisms of this country, to consider whether
there is any intention of progress in this world, and whether that
intention is discoverable in the age in which we live.

If it is an old question, it is not a settled one; the practical
disbelief in any such progress is widely entertained.  Not long ago Mr.
James Anthony Froude published an essay on Progress, in which he examined
some of the evidences upon which we rely to prove that we live in an "era
of progress."  It is a melancholy essay, for its tone is that of profound
skepticism as to certain influences and means of progress upon which we
in this country most rely.  With the illustrative arguments of Mr.
Froude's essay I do not purpose specially to meddle; I recall it to the
attention of the reader as a representative type of skepticism regarding
progress which is somewhat common among intellectual men, and is not
confined to England.  It is not exactly an acceptance of Rousseau's
notion that civilization is a mistake, and that it would be better for us
all to return to a state of nature--though in John Ruskin's case it
nearly amounts to this; but it is a hostility in its last analysis to
what we understand by the education of the people, and to the government
of the people by themselves.  If Mr. Froude's essay is anything but an
exhibition of the scholarly weapons of criticism, it is the expression of
a profound disbelief in the intellectual education of the masses of the
people.  Mr. Ruskin goes further.  He makes his open proclamation against
any emancipation from hand-toil.  Steam is the devil himself let loose
from the pit, and all labor-saving machinery is his own invention.
Mr. Ruskin is the bull that stands upon the track and threatens with
annihilation the on-coming locomotive; and I think that any spectator who
sees his menacing attitude and hears his roaring cannot but have fears
for the locomotive.

There are two sorts of infidelity concerning humanity, and I do not know
which is the more withering in its effects.  One is that which regards
this world as only a waste and a desert, across the sands of which we are
merely fugitives, fleeing from the wrath to come.  The other is that
doubt of any divine intention in development, in history, which we call
progress from age to age.

In the eyes of this latter infidelity history is not a procession or a
progression, but only a series of disconnected pictures, each little era
rounded with its own growth, fruitage, and decay, a series of incidents
or experiments, without even the string of a far-reaching purpose to
connect them.  There is no intention of progress in it all.  The race is
barbarous, and then it changes to civilized; in the one case the strong
rob the weak by brute force; in the other the crafty rob the unwary by
finesse.  The latter is a more agreeable state of things; but it comes to
about the same.  The robber used to knock us down and take away our
sheepskins; he now administers chloroform and relieves us of our watches.
It is a gentlemanly proceeding, and scientific, and we call it
civilization.  Meantime human nature remains the same, and the whole
thing is a weary round that has no advance in it.

If this is true the succession of men and of races is no better than a
vegetable succession; and Mr. Froude is quite right in doubting if
education of the brain will do the English agricultural laborer any good;
and Mr. Ruskin ought to be aided in his crusade against machinery, which
turns the world upside down.  The best that can be done with a man is the
best that can be done with a plant-set him out in some favorable
locality, or leave him where he happened to strike root, and there let
him grow and mature in measure and quiet--especially quiet--as he may in
God's sun and rain.  If he happens to be a cabbage, in Heaven's name
don't try to make a rose of him, and do not disturb the vegetable
maturing of his head by grafting ideas upon his stock.

The most serious difficulty in the way of those who maintain that there
is an intention of progress in this world from century to century, from
age to age--a discernible growth, a universal development--is the fact
that all nations do not make progress at the same time or in the same
ratio; that nations reach a certain development, and then fall away and
even retrograde; that while one may be advancing into high civilization,
another is lapsing into deeper barbarism, and that nations appear to have
a limit of growth.  If there were a law of progress, an intention of it
in all the world, ought not all peoples and tribes to advance pari passu,
or at least ought there not to be discernible a general movement,
historical and contemporary?  There is no such general movement which can
be computed, the law of which can be discovered--therefore it does not
exist.  In a kind of despair, we are apt to run over in our minds empires
and pre-eminent civilizations that have existed, and then to doubt
whether life in this world is intended to be anything more than a series
of experiments.  There is the German nation of our day, the most
aggressive in various fields of intellectual activity, a Hercules of
scholarship, the most thoroughly trained and powerful--though its
civilization marches to the noise of the hateful and barbarous drum.
In what points is it better than the Greek nation of the age of its
superlative artists, philosophers, poets--the age of the most joyous,
elastic human souls in the most perfect human bodies?

Again, it is perhaps a fanciful notion that the Atlantis of Plato was the
northern part of the South American continent, projecting out towards
Africa, and that the Antilles are the peaks and headlands of its sunken
bulk.  But there are evidences enough that the shores of the Gulf of
Mexico and the Caribbean Sea were within historic periods the seat of a
very considerable civilization--the seat of cities, of commerce, of
trade, of palaces and pleasure--gardens--faint images, perhaps, of the
luxurious civilization of Baia!  and Pozzuoli and Capri in the most
profligate period of the Roman empire.  It is not more difficult to
believe that there was a great material development here than to believe
it of the African shore of the Mediterranean.  Not to multiply instances
that will occur to all, we see as many retrograde as advance movements,
and we see, also, that while one spot of the earth at one time seems to
be the chosen theatre of progress, other portions of the globe are
absolutely dead and without the least leaven of advancing life, and we
cannot understand how this can be if there is any such thing as an all-
pervading and animating intention or law of progress.  And then we are
reminded that the individual human mind long ago attained its height of
power and capacity.  It is enough to recall the names of Moses, Buddha,
Confucius, Socrates, Paul, Homer, David.

No doubt it has seemed to other periods and other nations, as it now does
to the present civilized races, that they were the chosen times and
peoples of an extraordinary and limitless development.  It must have
seemed so to the Jews who overran Palestine and set their shining cities
on all the hills of heathendom.  It must have seemed so to the Babylonish
conquerors who swept over Palestine in turn, on their way to greater
conquests in Egypt.  It must have seemed so to Greece when the Acropolis
was to the outlying world what the imperial calla is to the marsh in
which it lifts its superb flower.  It must have seemed so to Rome when
its solid roads of stone ran to all parts of a tributary world--the
highways of the legions, her ministers, and of the wealth that poured
into her treasury.  It must have seemed so to followers of Mahomet, when
the crescent knew no pause in its march up the Arabian peninsula to the
Bosporus, to India, along the Mediterranean shores to Spain, where in the
eighth century it flowered into a culture, a learning, a refinement in
art and manners, to which the Christian world of that day was a stranger.
It must have seemed so in the awakening of the sixteenth century, when
Europe, Spain leading, began that great movement of discovery and
aggrandizement which has, in the end, been profitable only to a portion
of the adventurers.  And what shall we say of a nation as old, if not
older than any of these we have mentioned, slowly building up meantime a
civilization and perfecting a system of government and a social economy
which should outlast them all, and remain to our day almost the sole
monument of permanence and stability in a shifting world?

How many times has the face of Europe been changed--and parts of Africa,
and Asia Minor too, for that matter--by conquests and crusades, and the
rise and fall of civilizations as well as dynasties?  while China has
endured, almost undisturbed, under a system of law, administration,
morality, as old as the Pyramids probably--existed a coherent nation,
highly developed in certain essentials, meeting and mastering, so far as
we can see, the great problem of an over-populated territory, living in a
good degree of peace and social order, of respect for age and law, and
making a continuous history, the mere record of which is printed in a
thousand bulky volumes.  Yet we speak of the Chinese empire as an
instance of arrested growth, for which there is no salvation, except it
shall catch the spirit of progress abroad in the world.  What is this
progress, and where does it come from?

Think for a moment of this significant situation.  For thousands of
years, empires, systems of society, systems of civilization--Egyptian,
Jewish, Greek, Roman, Moslem, Feudal--have flourished and fallen, grown
to a certain height and passed away; great organized fabrics have gone
down, and, if there has been any progress, it has been as often defeated
as renewed.  And here is an empire, apart from this scene of alternate
success and disaster, which has existed in a certain continuity and
stability, and yet, now that it is uncovered and stands face to face with
the rest of the world, it finds that it has little to teach us, and
almost everything to learn from us.  The old empire sends its students to
learn of us, the newest child of civilization; and through us they learn
all the great past, its literature, law, science, out of which we sprang.
It appears, then, that progress has, after all, been with the shifting
world, that has been all this time going to pieces, rather than with the
world that has been permanent and unshaken.

When we speak of progress we may mean two things.  We may mean a lifting
of the races as a whole by reason of more power over the material world,
by reason of what we call the conquest of nature and a practical use of
its forces; or we may mean a higher development of the individual man,
so that he shall be better and happier.  If from age to age it is
discoverable that the earth is better adapted to man as a dwelling-place,
and he is on the whole fitted to get more out of it for his own growth,
is not that progress, and is it not evidence of an intention of progress?

Now, it is sometimes said that Providence, in the economy of this world,
cares nothing for the individual, but works out its ideas and purposes
through the races, and in certain periods, slowly bringing in, by great
agencies and by processes destructive to individuals and to millions of
helpless human beings, truths and principles; so laying stepping-stones
onward to a great consummation.  I do not care to dwell upon this
thought, but let us see if we can find any evidence in history of the
presence in this world of an intention of progress.

It is common to say that, if the world makes progress at all, it is by
its great men, and when anything important for the race is to be done,
a great man is raised up to do it.  Yet another way to look at it is,
that the doing of something at the appointed time makes the man who does
it great, or at least celebrated.  The man often appears to be only a
favored instrument of communication.  As we glance back we recognize the
truth that, at this and that period, the time had come for certain
discoveries.  Intelligence seemed pressing in from the invisible.  Many
minds were on the alert to apprehend it.  We believe, for instance, that
if Gutenberg had not invented movable types, somebody else would have
given them to the world about that time.  Ideas, at certain times, throng
for admission into the world; and we are all familiar with the fact that
the same important idea (never before revealed in all the ages) occurs to
separate and widely distinct minds at about the same time.  The invention
of the electric telegraph seemed to burst upon the world simultaneously
from many quarters--not perfect, perhaps, but the time for the idea had
come--and happy was it for the man who entertained it.  We have agreed to
call Columbus the discoverer of America, but I suppose there is no doubt
that America had been visited by European, and probably Asiatic, people
ages before Columbus; that four or five centuries before him people from
northern Europe had settlements here; he was fortunate, however, in
"discovering" it in the fullness of time, when the world, in its
progress, was ready for it.  If the Greeks had had gunpowder, electro-
magnetism, the printing press, history would need to be rewritten.
Why the inquisitive Greek mind did not find out these things is a mystery
upon any other theory than the one we are considering.

And it is as mysterious that China, having gunpowder and the art of
printing, is not today like Germany.

There seems to me to be a progress, or an intention of progress, in the
world, independent of individual men.  Things get on by all sorts of
instruments, and sometimes by very poor ones.  There are times when new
thoughts or applications of known principles seem to throng from the
invisible for expression through human media, and there is hardly ever an
important invention set free in the world that men do not appear to be
ready cordially to receive it.  Often we should be justified in saying
that there was a widespread expectation of it.  Almost all the great
inventions and the ingenious application of principles have many
claimants for the honor of priority.

On any other theory than this, that there is present in the world an
intention of progress which outlasts individuals, and even races,
I cannot account for the fact that, while civilizations decay and pass
away, and human systems go to pieces, ideas remain and accumulate.
We, the latest age, are the inheritors of all the foregoing ages.
I do not believe that anything of importance has been lost to the world.
The Jewish civilization was torn up root and branch, but whatever was
valuable in the Jewish polity is ours now.  We may say the same of the
civilizations of Athens and of Rome; though the entire organization of
the ancient world, to use Mr. Froude's figure, collapsed into a heap of
incoherent sand, the ideas remained, and Greek art and Roman law are part
of the world's solid possessions.

Even those who question the value to the individual of what we call
progress, admit, I suppose, the increase of knowledge in the world from
age to age, and not only its increase, but its diffusion.  The
intelligent schoolboy today knows more than the ancient sages knew--more
about the visible heavens, more of the secrets of the earth, more of the
human body.  The rudiments of his education, the common experiences of
his everyday life, were, at the best, the guesses and speculations of a
remote age.  There is certainly an accumulation of facts, ideas,
knowledge.  Whether this makes men better, wiser, happier, is indeed
disputed.

In order to maintain the notion of a general and intended progress, it is
not necessary to show that no preceding age has excelled ours in some
special, development.  Phidias has had no rival in sculpture, we may
admit.  It is possible that glass was once made as flexible as leather,
and that copper could be hardened like steel.  But I do not take much
stock in the "lost arts," the wondering theme of the lyceums.  The
knowledge of the natural world, and of materials, was never, I believe,
so extensive and exact as it is today.  It is possible that there are
tricks of chemistry, ingenious processes, secrets of color, of which we
are ignorant; but I do not believe there was ever an ancient alchemist
who could not be taught something in a modern laboratory.  The vast
engineering works of the ancient Egyptians, the remains of their temples
and pyramids, excite our wonder; but I have no doubt that President
Grant, if he becomes the tyrant they say he is becoming, and commands the
labor of forty millions of slaves--a large proportion of them office--
holders--could build a Karnak, or erect a string of pyramids across New
Jersey.

Mr. Froude runs lightly over a list of subjects upon which the believer
in progress relies for his belief, and then says of them that the world
calls this progress--he calls it only change.  I suppose he means by this
two things: that these great movements of our modern life are not any
evidence of a permanent advance, and that our whole structure may tumble
into a heap of incoherent sand, as systems of society have done before;
and, again, that it is questionable if, in what we call a stride in
civilization, the individual citizen is becoming any purer or more just,
or if his intelligence is directed towards learning and doing what is
right, or only to the means of more extended pleasures.

It is, perhaps, idle to speculate upon the first of these points--the
permanence of our advance, if it is an advance.  But we may be encouraged
by one thing that distinguishes this period--say from the middle of the
eighteenth century--from any that has preceded it.  I mean the
introduction of machinery, applied to the multiplication of man's power
in a hundred directions--to manufacturing, to locomotion, to the
diffusion of thought and of knowledge.  I need not dwell upon this
familiar topic.  Since this period began there has been, so far as I
know, no retrograde movement anywhere, but, besides the material, an
intellectual and spiritual kindling the world over, for which history has
no sort of parallel.  Truth is always the same, and will make its way,
but this subject might be illustrated by a study of the relation of
Christianity and of the brotherhood of men to machinery.  The theme would
demand an essay by itself.  I leave it with the one remark, that this
great change now being wrought in the world by the multiplicity of
machinery is not more a material than it is an intellectual one, and that
we have no instance in history of a catastrophe widespread enough and
adequate to sweep away its results.  That is to say, none of the
catastrophes, not even the corruptions, which brought to ruin the ancient
civilizations, would work anything like the same disaster in an age which
has the use of machinery that this age has.

For instance: Gibbon selects the period between the accession of Trajan
and the death of Marcus Aurelius as the time in which the human race
enjoyed more general happiness than they had ever known before, or had
since known.  Yet, says Mr. Froude, in the midst of this prosperity the
heart of the empire was dying out of it; luxury and selfishness were
eating away the principle that held society together, and the ancient
world was on the point of collapsing into a heap of incoherent sand.
Now, it is impossible to conceive that the catastrophe which did happen
to that civilization could have happened if the world had then possessed
the steam-engine, the printing-press, and the electric telegraph.  The
Roman power might have gone down, and the face of the world been recast;
but such universal chaos and such a relapse for the individual people
would seem impossible.

If we turn from these general considerations to the evidences that this
is an "era of progress" in the condition of individual men, we are met by
more specific denials.  Granted, it is said, all your facilities for
travel and communication, for cheap and easy manufacture, for the
distribution of cheap literature and news, your cheap education, better
homes, and all the comforts and luxuries of your machine civilization, is
the average man, the agriculturist, the machinist, the laborer any better
for it all?  Are there more purity, more honest, fair dealing, genuine
work, fear and honor of God?  Are the proceeds of labor more evenly
distributed?  These, it is said, are the criteria of progress; all else
is misleading.

Now, it is true that the ultimate end of any system of government or
civilization should be the improvement of the individual man.  And yet
this truth, as Mr. Froude puts it, is only a half-truth, so that this
single test of any system may not do for a given time and a limited area.
Other and wider considerations come in.  Disturbances, which for a while
unsettle society and do not bring good results to individuals, may,
nevertheless, be necessary, and may be a sign of progress.  Take the
favorite illustration of Mr. Froude and Mr. Ruskin--the condition of the
agricultural laborer of England.  If I understand them, the civilization
of the last century has not helped his position as a man.  If I
understand them, he was a better man, in a better condition of earthly
happiness, and with a better chance of heaven, fifty years ago than now,
before the "era of progress" found him out.  (It ought to be noticed
here, that the report of the Parliamentary Commission on the condition of
the English agricultural laborer does not sustain Mr. Froude's
assumptions.  On the contrary, the report shows that his condition is in
almost all respects vastly better than it was fifty years ago.)
Mr. Ruskin would remove the steam-engine and all its devilish works from
his vicinity; he would abolish factories, speedy travel by rail, new-
fangled instruments of agriculture, our patent education, and remit him
to his ancient condition--tied for life to a bit of ground, which should
supply all his simple wants; his wife should weave the clothes for the
family; his children should learn nothing but the catechism and to speak
the truth; he should take his religion without question from the hearty,
fox-hunting parson, and live and die undisturbed by ideas.  Now, it seems
to me that if Mr. Ruskin could realize in some isolated nation this idea
of a pastoral, simple existence, under a paternal government, he would
have in time an ignorant, stupid, brutal community in a great deal worse
case than the agricultural laborers of England are at present.  Three-
fourths of the crime in the kingdom of Bavaria is committed in the
Ultramontane region of the Tyrol, where the conditions of popular
education are about those that Mr. Ruskin seems to regret as swept away
by the present movement in England--a stagnant state of things, in which
any wind of heaven would be a blessing, even if it were a tornado.
Education of the modern sort unsettles the peasant, renders him unfit for
labor, and gives us a half-educated idler in place of a conscientious
workman.  The disuse of the apprentice system is not made good by the
present system of education, because no one learns a trade well, and the
consequence is poor work, and a sham civilization generally.  There is
some truth in these complaints.  But the way out is not backward, but
forward.  The fault is not with education, though it may be with the kind
of education.  The education must go forward; the man must not be half
but wholly educated.  It is only half-knowledge like half-training in a
trade that is dangerous.

But what I wish to say is, that notwithstanding certain unfavorable
things in the condition of the English laborer and mechanic, his chance
is better in the main than it was fifty years ago.  The world is a better
world for him.  He has the opportunity to be more of a man.  His world is
wider, and it is all open to him to go where he will.  Mr. Ruskin may not
so easily find his ideal, contented peasant, but the man himself begins
to apprehend that this is a world of ideas as well as of food and
clothes, and I think, if he were consulted, he would have no desire to
return to the condition of his ancestors.  In fact, the most hopeful
symptom in the condition of the English peasant is his discontent.
For, as skepticism is in one sense the handmaid of truth, discontent is
the mother of progress.  The man is comparatively of little use in the
world who is contented.

There is another thought pertinent here.  It is this: that no man,
however humble, can live a full life if he lives to himself alone.  He is
more of a man, he lives in a higher plane of thought and of enjoyment,
the more his communications are extended with his fellows and the wider
his sympathies are.  I count it a great thing for the English peasant,
a solid addition to his life, that he is every day being put into more
intimate relations with every other man on the globe.

I know it is said that these are only vague and sentimental notions of
progress--notions of a "salvation by machinery."  Let us pass to
something that may be less vague, even if it be more sentimental.  For a
hundred years we have reckoned it progress, that the people were taking
part in government.  We have had a good deal of faith in the proposition
put forth at Philadelphia a century ago, that men are, in effect, equal
in political rights.  Out of this simple proposition springs logically
the extension of suffrage, and a universal education, in order that this
important function of a government by the people may be exercised
intelligently.

Now we are told by the most accomplished English essayists that this is a
mistake, that it is change, but no progress.  Indeed, there are
philosophers in America who think so.  At least I infer so from the fact
that Mr. Froude fathers one of his definitions of our condition upon an
American.  When a block of printer's type is by accident broken up and
disintegrated, it falls into what is called "pi."  The "pi," a mere
chaos, is afterwards sorted and distributed, preparatory to being built
up into fresh combinations.  "A distinguished American friend," says Mr.
Froude, "describes Democracy as making pi."  It is so witty a sarcasm
that I almost think Mr. Froude manufactured it himself.  Well, we have
been making this "pi" for a hundred years; it seems to be a national dish
in considerable favor with the rest of the world--even such ancient
nations as China and Japan want a piece of it.

Now, of course, no form of human government is perfect, or anything like
it, but I should be willing to submit the question to an English traveler
even, whether, on the whole, the people of the United States do not have
as fair a chance in life and feel as little the oppression of government
as any other in the world; whether anywhere the burdens are more lifted
off men's shoulders.

This infidelity to popular government and unbelief in any good results to
come from it are not, unfortunately, confined to the English essayists.
I am not sure but the notion is growing in what is called the
intellectual class, that it is a mistake to intrust the government to the
ignorant many, and that it can only be lodged safely in the hands of the
wise few.  We hear the corruptions of the times attributed to universal
suffrage.  Yet these corruptions certainly are not peculiar to the United
States: It is also said here, as it is in England, that our diffused and
somewhat superficial education is merely unfitting the mass of men, who
must be laborers, for any useful occupation.

This argument, reduced to plain terms, is simply this: that the mass of
mankind are unfit to decide properly their own political and social
condition; and that for the mass of mankind any but a very limited mental
development is to be deprecated.  It would be enough to say of this, that
class government and popular ignorance have been tried for so many ages,
and always with disaster and failure in the end, that I should think
philanthropical historians would be tired of recommending them.  But
there is more to be said.

I feel that as a resident on earth, part owner of it for a time,
unavoidably a member of society, I have a right to a voice in determining
what my condition and what my chance in life shall be.  I may be
ignorant, I should be a very poor ruler of other people, but I am better
capable of deciding some things that touch me nearly than another is.
By what logic can I say that I should have a part in the conduct of this
world and that my neighbor should not?  Who is to decide what degree of
intelligence shall fit a man for a share in the government?  How are we
to select the few capable men that are to rule all the rest?  As a matter
of fact, men have been rulers who had neither the average intelligence
nor virtue of the people they governed.  And, as a matter of historical
experience, a class in power has always sought its own benefit rather
than that of the whole people.  Lunacy, extraordinary stupidity, and
crime aside, a man is the best guardian of his own liberty and rights.

The English critics, who say we have taken the government from the
capable few and given it to the people, speak of universal suffrage as a
quack panacea of this "era of progress."  But it is not the manufactured
panacea of any theorist or philosopher whatever.  It is the natural
result of a diffused knowledge of human rights and of increasing
intelligence.  It is nothing against it that Napoleon III. used a mockery
of it to govern France.  It is not a device of the closet, but a method
of government, which has naturally suggested itself to men as they have
grown into a feeling of self-reliance and a consciousness that they have
some right in the decision of their own destiny in the world.  It is true
that suffrage peculiarly fits a people virtuous and intelligent.  But
there has not yet been invented any government in which a people would
thrive who were ignorant and vicious.

Our foreign critics seem to regard our "American system," by the way, as
a sort of invention or patent right, upon which we are experimenting;
forgetting that it is as legitimate a growth out of our circumstances as
the English system is out of its antecedents.  Our system is not the
product of theorists or closet philosophers; but it was ordained in
substance and inevitable from the day the first "town meeting" assembled
in New England, and it was not in the power of Hamilton or any one else
to make it otherwise.

So you must have education, now you have the ballot, say the critics of
this era of progress; and this is another of your cheap inventions.
Not that we undervalue book knowledge.  Oh, no!  but it really seems to
us that a good trade, with the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments
back of it, would be the best thing for most of you.  You must work for a
living anyway; and why, now, should you unsettle your minds?

This is such an astounding view of human life and destiny that I do not
know what to say to it.  Did it occur to Mr. Froude to ask the man
whether he would be contented with a good trade and the Ten Commandments?
Perhaps the man would like eleven commandments?  And, if he gets hold of
the eleventh, he may want to know something more about his fellow-men,
a little geography maybe, and some of Mr. Froude's history, and thus he
may be led off into literature, and the Lord knows where.

The inference is that education--book fashion--will unfit the man for
useful work.  Mr. Froude here again stops at a half-truth.  As a general
thing, intelligence is useful in any position a man occupies.  But it is
true that there is a superficial and misdirected sort of education,
so called, which makes the man who receives it despise labor; and it is
also true that in the present educational revival there has been a
neglect of training in the direction of skilled labor, and we all suffer
more or less from cheap and dishonest work.  But the way out of this,
again, is forward, and not backward.  It is a good sign, and not a stigma
upon this era of progress, that people desire education.  But this
education must be of the whole man; he must be taught to work as well as
to read, and he is, indeed, poorly educated if he is not fitted to do his
work in the world.  We certainly shall not have better workmen by having
ignorant workmen.  I need not say that the real education is that which
will best fit a man for performing well his duties in life.  If Mr.
Froude, instead of his plaint over the scarcity of good mechanics, and of
the Ten Commandments in England, had recommended the establishment of
industrial schools, he would have spoken more to the purpose.

I should say that the fashionable skepticism of today, here and in
England, is in regard to universal suffrage and the capacity of the
people to govern themselves.  The whole system is the sharp invention of
Thomas Jefferson and others, by which crafty demagogues can rule.
Instead of being, as we have patriotically supposed, a real progress in
human development, it is only a fetich, which is becoming rapidly a
failure.  Now, there is a great deal of truth in the assertion that,
whatever the form of government, the ablest men, or the strongest, or the
most cunning in the nation, will rule.  And yet it is true that in a
popular government, like this, the humblest citizen, if he is wronged or
oppressed, has in his hands a readier instrument of redress than he has
ever had in any form of government.  And it must not be forgotten that
the ballot in the hands of all is perhaps the only safeguard against the
tyranny of wealth in the hands of the few.  It is true that bad men can
band together and be destructive; but so they can in any government.
Revolution by ballot is much safer than revolution by violence; and,
granting that human nature is selfish, when the whole people are the
government selfishness is on the side of the government.  Can you mention
any class in this country whose interest it is to overturn the
government?  And, then, as to the wisdom of the popular decisions by the
ballot in this country.  Look carefully at all the Presidential elections
from Washington's down, and say, in the light of history, if the popular
decision has not, every time, been the best for the country.  It may not
have seemed so to some of us at the time, but I think it is true, and a
very significant fact.

Of course, in this affirmation of belief that one hundred years of
popular government in this country is a real progress for humanity, and
not merely a change from the rule of the fit to the rule of the cunning,
we cannot forget that men are pretty much everywhere the same, and that
we have abundant reason for national humility.  We are pretty well aware
that ours is not an ideal state of society, and should be so, even if the
English who pass by did not revile us, wagging their heads.  We might
differ with them about the causes of our disorders.  Doubtless, extended
suffrage has produced certain results.  It seems, strangely enough, to
have escaped the observation of our English friends that to suffrage was
due the late horse disease.  No one can discover any other cause for it.
But there is a cause for the various phenomena of this period of shoddy,
of inflated speculation, of disturbance of all values, social, moral,
political, and material, quite sufficient in the light of history to
account for them.  It is not suffrage; it is an irredeemable paper
currency.  It has borne its usual fruit with us, and neither foreign nor
home critics can shift the responsibility of it upon our system of
government.  Yes, it is true, we have contrived to fill the world with
our scandals of late.  I might refer to a loose commercial and political
morality; to betrayals of popular trust in politics; to corruptions in
legislatures and in corporations; to an abuse of power in the public
press, which has hardly yet got itself adjusted to its sudden accession
of enormous influence.  We complain of its injustice to individuals
sometimes.  We might imagine that something like this would occur.

A newspaper one day says: "We are exceedingly pained to hear that the
Hon. Mr. Blank, who is running for Congress in the First District, has
permitted his aged grandmother to go to the town poorhouse.  What renders
this conduct inexplicable is the fact that Mr. Blank is a man of large
fortune."

The next day the newspaper says: "The Hon. Mr. Blank has not seen fit to
deny the damaging accusation in regard to the treatment of his
grandmother."

The next day the newspaper says: "Mr. Blank is still silent.  He is
probably aware that he cannot afford to rest under this grave charge."

The next day the newspaper asks: "Where's Blank?  Has he fled?"

At last, goaded by these remarks, and most unfortunately for himself,
Mr. Blank writes to the newspaper and most indignantly denies the charge;
he never sent his grandmother to the poorhouse.

Thereupon the newspaper says: "Of course a rich man who would put his own
grandmother in the poorhouse would deny it.  Our informant was a
gentleman of character.  Mr. Blank rests the matter on his unsupported
word.  It is a question of veracity."

Or, perhaps, Mr. Blank, more unfortunately for himself, begins by making
an affidavit, wherein he swears that he never sent his grandmother to the
poorhouse, and that, in point of fact, he has not any grandmother
whatever.

The newspaper then, in language that is now classical, "goes for" Mr.
Blank.  It says: "Mr. Blank resorts to the common device of the rogue--
the affidavit.  If he had been conscious of rectitude, would he not have
relied upon his simple denial?"

Now, if an extreme case like this could occur, it would be bad enough.
But, in our free society, the remedy would be at hand.  The constituents
of Mr. Blank would elect him in triumph.  The newspaper would lose public
confidence and support and learn to use its position more justly.  What I
mean to indicate by such an extreme instance as this is, that in our very
license of individual freedom there is finally a correcting power.

We might pursue this general subject of progress by a comparison of the
society of this country now with that of fifty years ago.  I have no
doubt that in every essential this is better than that, in manners, in
morality, in charity and toleration, in education and religion.  I know
the standard of morality is higher.  I know the churches are purer.
Not fifty years ago, in a New England town, a distinguished doctor of
divinity, the pastor of a leading church, was part owner in a distillery.
He was a great light in his denomination, but he was an extravagant
liver, and, being unable to pay his debts, he was arrested and put into
jail, with the liberty of the "limits."  In order not to interrupt his
ministerial work, the jail limits were made to include his house and his
church, so that he could still go in and out before his people.  I do not
think that could occur anywhere in the United States today.

I will close these fragmentary suggestions by saying that I, for one,
should like to see this country a century from now.  Those who live then
will doubtless say of this period that it was crude, and rather
disorderly, and fermenting with a great many new projects; but I have
great faith that they will also say that the present extending notion,
that the best government is for the people, by the people, was in the
line of sound progress.  I should expect to find faith in humanity
greater and not less than it is now, and I should not expect to find that
Mr. Froude's mournful expectation had been realized, and that the belief
in a life beyond the grave had been withdrawn.





End of Project Gutenberg Etext of Mr. Froude's Progress by C. D. Warner

