CHAPTER VIII--ON CANTING NONSENSE
The writer now wishes to say something on the subject of cantingnonsense, of which there is a great deal in England. There are variouscants in England, amongst which is the religious cant. He is not goingto discuss the subject of religious cant; lest, however, he should bemisunderstood, he begs leave to repeat that he is a sincere member of theold-fashioned Church of England, in which he believes there is morereligion, and consequently less cant, than in any other church in theworld; nor is he going to discuss many other cants; he shall contenthimself with saying something about two--the temperance cant and theunmanly cant. Temperance canters say that 'it is unlawful to drink aglass of ale.' Unmanly canters say that 'it is unlawful to use one'sfists.' The writer begs leave to tell both these species of canters thatthey do not speak the words of truth.
It is very lawful to take a cup of ale, or wine, for the purpose ofcheering or invigorating yourself when you are faint and down-hearted;and likewise to give a cup of ale or wine to others when they are in asimilar condition. The Holy Scripture sayeth nothing to the contrary,but rather encourageth people in so doing by the text, 'Wine maketh gladthe heart of man.' But it is not lawful to intoxicate yourself withfrequent cups of ale or wine, nor to make others intoxicated, nor doesthe Holy Scripture say that it is. The Holy Scripture no more says thatit is lawful to intoxicate yourself or others, than it says that it isunlawful to take a cup of ale or wine yourself, or to give one to others.Noah is not commended in the Scripture for making himself drunken on thewine he brewed. Nor is it said that the Saviour, when He supplied theguests with first-rate wine at the marriage feast, told them to makethemselves drunk upon it. He is said to have supplied them withfirst-rate wine, but He doubtless left the quantity which each shoulddrink to each party's reason and discretion. When you set a good dinnerbefore your guests, you do not expect that they should gorge themselveswith the victuals you set before them. Wine may be abused, and so may aleg of mutton.
Second. It is lawful for anyone to use his fists in his own defence, orin the defence of others, provided they can't help themselves; but it isnot lawful to use them for purposes of tyranny or brutality. If you areattacked by a ruffian, as the elderly individual in 'Lavengro' is in theinn-yard, it is quite lawful, if you can, to give him as good a thrashingas the elderly individual gave the brutal coachman; and if you see ahelpless woman--perhaps your own sister--set upon by a drunken lord, adrunken coachman, or a drunken coalheaver, or a brute of any description,either drunk or sober, it is not only lawful, but laudable, to give them,if you can, a good drubbing; but it is not lawful, because you have astrong pair of fists, and know how to use them, to go swaggering througha fair, jostling against unoffending individuals; should you do so, youwould be served quite right if you were to get a drubbing, moreparticularly if you were served out by some one less strong, but moreskilful than yourself--even as the coachman was served out by a pupil ofthe immortal Broughton--sixty years old, it is true, but possessed ofBroughton's guard and chop. Moses is not blamed in the Scripture fortaking part with the oppressed, and killing an Egyptian persecutor. Weare not told how Moses killed the Egyptian; but it is quite as creditableto Moses to suppose that he killed the Egyptian by giving him a buffetunder the left ear, as by stabbing him with a knife. It is true, thatthe Saviour in the New Testament tells His disciples to turn the leftcheek to be smitten, after they had received a blow on the right; but Hewas speaking to people divinely inspired, or whom He intended divinely toinspire--people selected by God for a particular purpose. He likewisetells these people to part with various articles of raiment when askedfor them, and to go a-travelling without money, and to take no thought ofthe morrow. Are those exhortations carried out by very good people inthe present day? Do Quakers, when smitten on the right cheek, turn theleft to the smiter? When asked for their coat, do they say: 'Friend,take my shirt also'? Has the Dean of Salisbury no purse? Does theArchbishop of Canterbury go to an inn, run up a reckoning, and then sayto his landlady, 'Mistress, I have no coin'? Assuredly the Dean has apurse, and a tolerably well-filled one; and, assuredly, the Archbishop,on departing from an inn, not only settles his reckoning, but leavessomething handsome for the servants, and does not say that he isforbidden by the Gospel to pay for what he has eaten, or the trouble hehas given, as a certain Spanish cavalier said he was forbidden by thestatutes of chivalry. Now, to take the part of yourself, or the part ofthe oppressed, with your fists, is quite as lawful in the present day asit is to refuse your coat and your shirt also to any vagabond who may askfor them, and not to refuse to pay for supper, bed, and breakfast, at theFeathers, or any other inn, after you have had the benefit of all three.
The conduct of Lavengro with respect to drink may, upon the whole, serveas a model. He is no drunkard, nor is he fond of intoxicating otherpeople; yet when the horrors are upon him he has no objection to go to apublic-house and call for a pint of ale, nor does he shrink fromrecommending ale to others when they are faint and downcast. In oneinstance, it is true, he does what cannot be exactly justified; heencourages the Priest in the dingle, in more instances than one, indrinking more hollands and water than is consistent with decorum. He hasa motive indeed in doing so; a desire to learn from the knave in his cupsthe plans and hopes of the Propaganda of Rome. Such conduct, however,was inconsistent with strict fair dealing and openness; and the authoradvises all those whose consciences never reproach them for a singleunfair or covert act committed by them, to abuse him heartily foradministering hollands and water to the Priest of Rome. In that instancethe hero is certainly wrong; yet in all other cases with regard to drink,he is manifestly right. To tell people that they are never to drink aglass of ale or wine themselves, or to give one to others, is cant; andthe writer has no toleration for cant of any description. Some cants arenot dangerous; but the writer believes that a more dangerous cant thanthe temperance cant, or, as it is generally called, teetotalism, isscarcely to be found. The writer is willing to believe that itoriginated with well-meaning, though weak people; but there can be nodoubt that it was quickly turned to account by people who were neitherwell-meaning nor weak. Let the reader note particularly the purpose towhich this cry has been turned in America; the land, indeed, parexcellence, of humbug and humbug cries. It is there continually in themouth of the most violent political party, and is made an instrument ofalmost unexampled persecution. The writer would say more on thetemperance cant, both in England and America, but want of space preventshim. There is one point on which he cannot avoid making a few briefremarks--that is, the inconsistent conduct of its apostles in general.The teetotal apostle says it is a dreadful thing to be drunk. So it is,teetotaller; but, if so, why do you get drunk? I get drunk? Yes,unhappy man, why do you get drunk on smoke and passion? Why are yourgarments impregnated with the odour of the Indian weed? Why is there apipe or cigar always in your mouth? Why is your language more dreadfulthan that of a Poissarde? Tobacco smoke is more deleterious than ale,teetotaller; bile more potent than brandy. You are fond of telling yourhearers what an awful thing it is to die drunken. So it is teetotaller.Then take care that you do not die with smoke and passion, drunken, andwith temperance language on your lips; that is, abuse and calumny againstall those who differ from you. One word of sense you have been heard tosay, which is, that spirits may be taken as a medicine. Now you are in afever of passion, teetotaller; so, pray take this tumbler of brandy; takeit on the homoeopathic principle, that heat is to be expelled by heat.You are in a temperance fury, so swallow the contents of this tumbler,and it will, perhaps, cure you. You look at the glass wistfully--you sayyou occasionally take a glass medicinally, and it is probable you do.Take one now. Consider what a dreadful thing it would be to die passiondrunk, to appear before your Maker with _in_temperate language on yourlips. That's right! You don't seem to wince at the brandy. That'sright--well done! All down in two pulls. Now you look like a reasonablebeing!
If the conduct of Lavengro wit
h regard to drink is open to littlecensure, assuredly the use which he makes of his fists is entitled tonone at all. Because he has a pair of tolerably strong fists, and knowsto a certain extent how to use them, is he a swaggerer or oppressor? Towhat ill account does he turn them? Who more quiet, gentle, andinoffensive than he? He beats off a ruffian who attacks him in a dingle;has a kind of friendly tuzzle with Mr. Petulengro, and behold the extentof his fistic exploits.
Ay, but he associates with prize-fighters; and that very fellow,Petulengro, is a prize-fighter, and has fought for a stake in a ring.Well, and if he had not associated with prize-fighters, how could he haveused his fists? Oh, anybody can use his fists in his own defence,without being taught by prize-fighters. Can they? Then why does not theItalian, or Spaniard, or Affghan use his fists when insulted or outraged,instead of having recourse to the weapons which he has recourse to?Nobody can use his fists without being taught the use of them by thosewho have themselves been taught, no more than anyone can 'whiffle' {355}without being taught by a master of the art. Now let any man of thepresent day try to whiffle. Would not anyone who wished to whiffle haveto go to a master of the art? Assuredly! but where would he find one atthe present day? The last of the whifflers hanged himself about afortnight ago on a bell-rope in a church steeple of 'the old town,' frompure grief that there was no further demand for the exhibition of hisart, there being no demand for whiffling since the discontinuation ofGuildhall banquets. Whiffling is lost. The old chap left his swordbehind him; let anyone take up the old chap's sword and try to whiffle.Now much the same hand as he would make who should take up the whiffler'ssword and try to whiffle, would he who should try to use his fists whohad never had the advantage of a master. Let no one think that men usetheir fists naturally in their own disputes--men have naturally recourseto any other thing to defend themselves or to offend others; they fly tothe stick, to the stone, to the murderous and cowardly knife, or to abuseas cowardly as the knife, and occasionally more murderous. Now which isbest when you hate a person, or have a pique against a person, to clenchyour fist and say 'Come on,' or to have recourse to the stone, the knife,or murderous calumny? The use of the fist is almost lost in England.Yet are the people better than they were when they knew how to use theirfists? The writer believes not. A fisty combat is at present a greatrarity, but the use of the knife, the noose, and of poison, to saynothing of calumny, are of more frequent occurrence in England thanperhaps in any country in Europe. Is polite taste better than when itcould bear the details of a fight! The writer believes not. Two mencannot meet in a ring to settle a dispute in a manly manner without sometrumpery local newspaper letting loose a volley of abuse against 'thedisgraceful exhibition,' in which abuse it is sure to be sanctioned byits dainty readers; whereas some murderous horror, the discovery, forexample, of the mangled remains of a woman in some obscure den, isgreedily seized hold on by the moral journal and dressed up for itsreaders, who luxuriate and gloat upon the ghastly dish. Now, the writerof 'Lavengro' has no sympathy with those who would shrink from striking ablow, but would not shrink from the use of poison or calumny; and histaste has little in common with that which cannot tolerate the hardydetails of a prize-fight, but which luxuriates on descriptions of themurder dens of modern England. But prize-fighters and pugilists areblackguards, a reviewer has said; and blackguards they would be, providedthey employed their skill and their prowess for purposes of brutality andoppression; but prize-fighters and pugilists are seldom friends tobrutality and oppression; and which is the blackguard, the writer wouldask, he who uses his fists to take his own part, or instructs others touse theirs for the same purpose, or the being who from envy and malice,or at the bidding of a malicious scoundrel, endeavours by calumny,falsehood, and misrepresentation to impede the efforts of lonely andunprotected genius?
One word more about the race, all but extinct, of the peopleopprobriously called prize-fighters. Some of them have been as noble,kindly men as the world ever produced. Can the rolls of the Englisharistocracy exhibit names belonging to more noble, heroic men, than thosewho were called respectively Pearce, Cribb, {357a} and Spring? {357b}Did ever one of the English aristocracy contract the seeds of fatalconsumption by rushing up the stairs of a burning edifice, even to thetopmost garret, and rescuing a woman from seemingly inevitabledestruction? The writer says, No. A woman was rescued from the top of aburning house, but the man who rescued her was no aristocrat; it wasPearce, not Percy, who ran up the burning stairs. Did ever one of thoseglittering ones save a fainting female from the libidinous rage of sixruffians? The writer believes not. A woman was rescued from thelibidinous fury of six monsters on --- Down, but the man who rescued herwas no aristocrat; it was Pearce, not Paulet, who rescued the woman, andthrashed my lord's six gamekeepers--Pearce, whose equal never was, andprobably never will be, found in sturdy combat. Are there any of thearistocracy of whom it can be said that they never did a cowardly, cruel,or mean action, and that they invariably took the part of the unfortunateand weak against cruelty and oppression? As much can be said of Cribb,of Spring, and the other; but where is the aristocrat of whom as much canbe said? Wellington? Wellington, indeed! A skilful general, and a goodman of valour, it is true, but with that cant word of 'duty' continuallyon his lips, did he rescue Ney from his butchers? Did he lend a helpinghand to Warner?
In conclusion, the writer would strongly advise those of hiscountry-folks who may read his book to have nothing to do with the twokinds of canting nonsense described above, but in their progress throughlife to enjoy as well as they can, but always with moderation, the goodthings of this world, to put confidence in God, to be as independent aspossible, and to take their own parts. If they are low-spirited, letthem not make themselves foolish by putting on sackcloth, drinking water,or chewing ashes, but let them take wholesome exercise, and eat the mostgenerous food they can get, taking up and reading occasionally, not thelives of Ignatius Loyola and Francis Spira, but something more agreeable;for example, the life and adventures of Mr. Duncan Campbell, the deaf anddumb gentleman; the travels of Captain Falconer in America, and thejournal of John Randall, who went to Virginia and married an Indian wife;not forgetting, amidst their eating and drinking, their walks overheaths, and by the sea-side, and their agreeable literature, to becharitable to the poor, to read the Psalms, and to go to church twice ona Sunday. In their dealings with people to be courteous to everybody, asLavengro was, but always independent like him; and if people meddle withthem, to give them as good as they bring, even as he and Isopel Bernerswere in the habit of doing; and it will be as well for him to observethat he by no means advises women to be too womanly, but bearing theconduct of Isopel Berners in mind, to take their own parts, and ifanybody strikes them, to strike again.
Beating of women by the lords of the creation has become very prevalentin England since pugilism has been discountenanced. Now the writerstrongly advises any woman who is struck by a ruffian to strike himagain; or if she cannot clench her fists, and he advises all women inthese singular times to learn to clench their fists, to go at him withtooth and nail, and not to be afraid of the result, for any fellow who isdastard enough to strike a woman, would allow himself to be beaten by awoman, were she to make at him in self-defence, even if, instead ofpossessing the stately height and athletic proportions of the aforesaidIsopel, she were as diminutive in stature, and had a hand as delicate anda foot as small as a certain royal lady, who was some time ago assaultedby a fellow upwards of six feet high, whom the writer has no doubt shecould have beaten had she thought proper to go at him. Such is thedeliberate advice of the author to his countrymen and women--advice inwhich he believes there is nothing unscriptural or repugnant tocommon-sense.
The writer is perfectly well aware that, by the plain language which hehas used in speaking of the various kinds of nonsense prevalent inEngland, he shall make himself a multitude of enemies; but he is notgoing to conceal the truth, or to tamper with nonsense, from the fear ofprovoking hostility. He h
as a duty to perform, and he will perform itresolutely; he is the person who carried the Bible to Spain; and asresolutely as he spoke in Spain against the superstitions of Spain, willhe speak in England against the nonsense of his own native land. He isnot one of those who, before they sit down to write a book, say tothemselves, What cry shall we take up? what principles shall we advocate?What principles shall we abuse? Before we put pen to paper we must findout what cry is the loudest, what principle has the most advocates,otherwise, after having written our book, we may find ourselves on theweaker side.
A sailor of the _Bounty_, waked from his sleep by the noise of themutiny, lay still in his hammock for some time, quite undecided whetherto take part with the captain or to join the mutineers. 'I must mindwhat I do,' said he to himself, 'lest in the end I find myself on theweaker side.' Finally, on hearing that the mutineers were successful, hewent on deck, and seeing Bligh pinioned to the mast, he put his fist tohis nose, and otherwise insulted him. Now, there are many writers of thepresent day whose conduct is very similar to that of the sailor. Theylie listening in their corners till they have ascertained which principlehas most advocates; then presently they make their appearance on the deckof the world with their book; if truth has been victorious, then hastruth their hurrah! but if truth is pinioned against the mast, then istheir fist thrust against the nose of truth, and their gibe and theirinsult spirted in her face. The strongest party had the sailor, and thestrongest party has almost invariably the writer of the present day.