writes to me), "Clovis called his axe 'Francisca' when he threw it to determine by its fall where he should build a church," and in Littré's dictionary a root is suggested, in the Anglo-Saxon Franca, "javelin." But I think these are all collateral, not original uses. I am not sure even when the word came to be used for the current silver coin of France: that, at least, must be ascertainable. It is curious that in no fit of Liberty and Equality, the anti-Imperialists have thought of calling their golden coins "Citizens" instead of " Napoleons": nor even their sous, Sansculottes. 1 16. (III.) Some of my correspondents ask me what has become of my promised additional Fors on the glaciers. Well, it got crevassed, and split itself into three; and then relegated itself into a somewhat compact essay on glaciers; and then got jammed up altogether, because I found that the extremely scientific Professor Tyndall had never distinguished the quality of viscosity from plasticity (or the consistence of honey from that of butter), still less the gradations of character in the approach of metals, glass, or stone, to their freezing-points; and that I wasn't as clear as could be wished on some of these matters myself; and, in fact, that I had better deal with the subject seriously in my Oxford lectures than in Fors, which I hope to do this next autumn, after looking again at the riband structure of the Brenva.2 Meantime, here-out of I don't know what paper (I wish my correspondents would always cross the slips they cut out with the paper's name and date),-is a lively account of the present state of affairs, with a compliment to Professor Tyndall on his style of debate, which I beg humbly to endorse. "An awful battle, we regret to say, is now raging between some of the most distinguished men of Science, Literature, and Art, for all those three fair sisters have hurtled into the Homeric fray. The combatants on one side are Professors G. Forbes, Tait, and Ruskin, with Mr. Alfred Wills, and on the other-alone, but fearless and undismayed-the great name of Tyndall. The causa teterrima belli is in itself a cold and unlikely one-namely, the glaciers of Switzerland; but fiercer the fight could not be, we grieve to state, if the question of eternal punishment, with all its fiery accessory scenery, were under discussion. We have no rash intention of venturing into that terrible battle-ground where Professor Ruskin is laying about him with his Fors Clavigera, and where Professor Tait, like another Titan, hurls wildly into the affrighted air such epithets as 'contemptible,' 'miserable,' 'disgusting,' 'pernicious,' 'pestilent.' These adjectives, for anything that ignorant journalists can know, may mean, in Scotch scientific parlance, everything that is fair, chivalrous, becoming, and measured in argument. But, merely from the British instinct of fair play, which does not like to see four against one, and without venturing a single word about the glaciers, we cannot help remarking how much more consistent with the dignity of science appears Professor Tyndall's answer in the last number of the Contemporary Review. If it be true that the man who keeps his temper is generally in the right, we shall decidedly back Mr. Tyndall and the late lamented Agassiz in the present dreadful conflict. Speaking, for instance, of those same furious adjectives, which we have culled from the literary parterre of Professor Tait, Dr. Tyndall sweetly says, 'The spirit which prompts them may, after all, be but a local distortion of that noble force of heart which 1 [See Letter 35, § 14 (Vol. XXVII. p. 663).] answered the Cameron's Gathering at Waterloo; carried the Black Watch to Coomassie; and which has furnished Scotland with the materials of an immortal history. Still, rudeness is not independence, bluster is not strength, nor is coarseness courage. We have won the human understanding from the barbarism of the past; but we have won along with it the dignity, courtesy, and truth of civilized life. And the man who on the platform or in the press does violence to this ethical side of human nature discharges but an imperfect duty to the public, whatever the qualities of his understanding may be.' This, we humbly think, is how men of science ought to talk when they quarrel-if they quarrel at all." I hope much to profit by this lesson. I have not my School for Scandal by me but I know where to find it the minute I get home; and I'll do my best. "The man who," etc., etc.;-yes, I think I can manage it.1 1 [The reference is of course to Joseph Surface's hypocritical formula-"the man who can break the laws of hospitality," etc., "the man who is entrusted with his friend's distresses can never-,' and so forth; and to Sir Peter Teazle's comment, "What noble sentiments!" (Act iv. sc. 3).] LETTER 44 THE SQUIRREL CAGE.1 ENGLISH SERVITUDE 3 ROME, 6th June, 1874. 1. THE poor Campagna herdsman, whose seeking for St. Paul's statue the Professor of Fine Art in the University of Oxford so disgracefully failed to assist him in,2 had been kneeling nearer the line of procession of the Corpus Domini than I; in fact, quite among the rose-leaves which had been strewed for a carpet round the aisles of the Basilica. I grieve to say that I was shy of the rose-bestrewn path, myself; for the crowd waiting at the side of it had mixed up the rose-leaves with spittle so richly as to make quite a pink pomatum of them. And, indeed, the living temples of the Holy Ghost which in any manner bestir themselves here among the temples,-whether of Roman gods or Christian saints, have merely and simply the two great operations upon them of filling their innermost adyta with dung, and making their pavements slippery with spittle; the Pope's new tobacco manufactory under the Palatine,'an infinitely more important object now, in all views of Rome from the west, than either the Palatine or the Capitol,-greatly aiding and encouraging this especial form of lustration: while the still more ancient documents of Egyptian religion-the obelisks of the Piazza del Popolo, and of the portico of St. Peter's-are entirely eclipsed by the obelisks of our English religion, lately elevated, in full 1 [See below, § 12.] 2 [See Letter 43, § 19, p. 119.] 31 Corinthians vi. 19.] [The huge factory behind the church of S. Maria dell' Orto; "the Pope's," because erected during the Papal dominion (in 1863).] view from the Pincian and the Montorio, with smoke coming out of the top of them. And farther, the entire eastern district of Rome, between the two Basilicas of the Lateran and St. Lorenzo, is now one mass of volcanic ruin; a desert of dust and ashes, the lust of wealth exploding there, out of a crater deeper than Etna's, and raging, as far as it can reach, in one frantic desolation of whatever is lovely, or holy, or memorable, in the central city of the world.1 2. For there is one fixed idea in the mind of every European progressive politician, at this time; namely, that by a certain application of Financial Art, and by the erection of a certain quantity of new buildings on a colossal scale, it will be possible for society hereafter to pass its entire life in eating, smoking, harlotry, and talk; without doing anything whatever with its hands or feet of a laborious character. And as these new buildings, whose edification is a main article of this modern political faith and hope,-(being required for gambling and dining in on a large scale), cannot be raised without severely increased taxation of the poorer classes (here in Italy direct, and in all countries consisting in the rise of price in all articles of food-wine alone in Italy costing just ten times what it did ten years ago), and this increased taxation and distress are beginning to be felt too grievously to be denied; nor only so, but-which is still less agreeable to modern politicians-with slowly dawning perception of their true causes, -one finds also the popular journalists, for some time back addressing themselves to the defence of Taxation, and Theft in general, after this fashion :— "The wealth in the world may practically be regarded as infinitely great. It is not true that what one man appropriates becomes thereupon 1 [Readers unacquainted with Rome past and present may be referred to ch. xiii. in the later editions of Hare's Walks in Rome for an account of the interest and beauty of this district of the city, now much diminished by "frightful modern buildings." For another reference to vandalism in modern Rome, see Letters 18, § 14, and 21, § 9 (Vol. XXVII. pp. 315, 358).] useless to others, and it is also untrue that force or fraud, direct or indirect, are the principal, or, indeed, that they are at all common or important, modes of acquiring wealth."-Pall Mall Gazette, Jan. 14th, 1869.* 3. The philosophical journalist, after some further contemptuous statement of the vulgar views on this subject, conveniently dispenses (as will be seen by reference to the end of the clause in the note) with the defence of his own. I will undertake the explanation of what was, perhaps, even to himself, not altogether clear in his impressions. If a burglar ever carries off the Editor's plate-basket, the bereaved Editor will console himself by reflecting that "it is not true that what one man appropriates becomes thereupon useless to others: "-for truly (he will thus proceed to finer investigation) this plate of mine, melted down, after being transitionally serviceable to the burglar, will enter again into the same functions among the silver of the world which it had in my own possession; so that the intermediate benefit to the burglar may be regarded as entirely a form of trade profit, and a kind of turning over of capital. And "it is also untrue that force or fraud, direct or indirect, are the principal, or indeed that they are at all common or * The passage continues thus, curiously enough, -for the parallel of the boat at sea is precisely that which I have given, in true explanation of social phenomena: "The notion that when one man becomes rich he makes others poor, will be found upon examination to depend upon the assumption that there is in the world a fixed quantity of wealth; that when one man appropriates to himself a large amount of it, he excludes all others from any benefit arising from it, and that at the same time he forces some one else to be content with less than he would otherwise have had. Society, in short, must be compared to a boat at sea, in which there is a certain quantity of fresh water, and a certain number of shipwrecked passengers. In that case, no doubt, the water drunk by one is of no use to the rest, and if one drinks more, others must drink less, as the water itself is a fixed quantity. Moreover, no one man would be able to get more than a rateable share, except by superior force, or by some form of deceit, because the others would prevent him. The mere statement of this view ought to be a sufficient exposure of the fundamental error of the commonplaces which we are considering." [See Time and Tide, § 65 (Vol. XVII. p. 372).] |