Part 17 (2/2)

'Zat's easy when you know,' I say, 'Mon Anglais I'll get through.'

”My teacher say zat in zat case O-u-g-h is 'oo,'

And zen I laugh and say to him 'Zees Anglais make me cough.'

”He say, 'Not coo, but in zat word O-u-g-h is ”off,”'

Oh, _sacre bleu_! such varied sounds Of words make me hiccough!

”He say, 'Again, mon friend ees wrong!

O-u-g-h is ”up,”

In hiccough,' Zen I cry, 'No more, You make my throat feel rough,'

”'Non! non!' he cry, 'you are not right-- O-u-g-h is ”uff.”'

I say, 'I try to speak your words, I can't p.r.o.nonz zem though,'

”'In time you'll learn, but now you're wrong, O-u-g-h is ”owe.”'

'I'll try no more. I sall go mad, I'll drown me in ze lough!'

”'But ere you drown yourself,' said he, 'O-u-g-h is ”ock.”'

He taught no more! I held him fast, And killed him wiz a rough!”

[241] It is interesting to remember that at one period in European history, French seemed likely to absorb English, and thus to acquire, in addition to its own motor force, all the motor force which now lies behind English. When the Normans--a vigorous people of Scandinavian origin, speaking a Romance tongue, and therefore well fitted to accomplish a harmonizing task of this kind--occupied both sides of the English Channel, it seemed probable that they would dominate the speech of England as well as of France. ”At that time,” says Meray (_La Vie aux Temps des Cours d'Amour_, p. 367), who puts forward this view, ”the people of the two coasts of the Channel were closer in customs and in speech than were for a long time the French on the opposite banks of the Loire.... The influential part of the English nation and all the people of its southern regions spoke the _Romance_ of the north of France. In the Crusades the Knights of the two peoples often mixed, and were greeted as Franks wherever their adventurous spirit led them. If Edward III, with the object of envenoming an antagonism which served his own ends, had not broken this link of language, the two peoples would perhaps have been united to-day in the same efforts of progress and of liberty.... Of what a fine instrument of culture and of progress has not that fatal decree of Edward III deprived civilization!”

[242] I was at one time (_Progressive Review_, April, 1897) inclined to think that the adoption of both English and French, as joint auxiliary international languages--the first for writing and the second for speaking--might solve the problem. I have since recognized that such a solution, however advantageous it might be for human culture, would present many difficulties, and is quite impracticable.

[243] I may refer to three able papers which have appeared in recent years in the _Popular Science Monthly_: Anna Monsch Roberts, ”The Problem of International Speech” (February, 1908); Ivy Kellerman, ”The Necessity for an International Language,” (September, 1909); Albert Leon Guerard, ”English as an International Language” (October, 1911). All these writers reject as impracticable the adoption of either English or French as the auxiliary international language, and view with more favour the adoption of an artificial language such as Esperanto.

[244] A.M. Roberts, _op. cit._

[245] It should be added, however, that the auxiliary language need not be used as a medium for literary art, and it is a mistake, as Pfaundler points out, to translate poems into such a language.

[246] See _International Language and Science_, 1910, by Couturat, Jespersen, Lorenz, Ostwald, Pfaundler, and Donnan, five professors living in five different countries.

[247] The progress of the movement is recorded in its official journal, _Progreso_, edited by Couturat, and in De Beaufront's journal, _La Langue Auxiliaire_.

XII

INDIVIDUALISM AND SOCIALISM

Social Hygiene in Relation to the Alleged Opposition between Socialism and Individualism--The Two Parties in Politics--The Relation of Conservatism and Radicalism to Socialism and Individualism--The Basis of Socialism--The Basis of Individualism--The seeming Opposition between Socialism and Individualism merely a Division of Labour--Both Socialism and Individualism equally Necessary--Not only Necessary but Indispensable to each other--The Conflict between the Advocates of Environment and Heredity--A New Embodiment of the supposed Conflict between Socialism and Individualism--The Place of Eugenics--Social Hygiene ultimately one with the Hygiene of the Soul--The Function of Utopias.

The controversy between Individualism and Socialism, the claim of the personal unit as against the claim of the collective community, is of ancient date. Yet it is ever new and constantly presented afresh. It even seems to become more acute as civilization progresses. Every scheme of social reform, every powerful manifestation of individual energy, raise anew a problem that is never out of date.

It is inevitable, indeed, that with the development of social hygiene during the past hundred years there should also develop a radical opposition of opinion as to the methods by which such hygiene ought to be accomplished. There has always been this opposition in the political sphere; it is natural to find it also in the social sphere. The very fact that old-fas.h.i.+oned politics are becoming more and more transformed into questions of social hygiene itself ensures the continuance of such an opposition.

In politics, and especially in the politics of const.i.tutional countries of which England is the type, there are normally two parties. There is the party that holds by tradition, by established order and solidarity, the maintenance of the ancient hierarchical const.i.tution of society, and in general distinguishes itself by a preference for the old over the new. There is, on the other side, the party that insists on progress, on freedom, on the reasonable demands of the individual, on the adaptation of the accepted order to changing conditions, and in general distinguishes itself by a preference for the new over the old. The first may be called the party of structure, and the second the party of function. In England we know the adherents of one party as Conservatives and those of the other party as Liberals or Radicals.

<script>