France is the mainspring of the new mechanism, and Paris the control. That is why I chose to go to Paris
last--so that all, even London, could be related to her. The initiative in European politics is taken by France
and she has the most active policy. Most other States wait to see what France is doing and shape their policies
accordingly. London is generally in opposition to Paris, but English action is so sluggish and so independable
that even those States who loathe the new France are obliged to assume that England does not really count.
With the exception of Greece, England is not giving active support or practical sympathy to any other country
in Europe. But France backs Poles and Turks and Hungarians and Serbs, and is carrying out a grand scheme
of world-policy clearly--if not very effectively.
France has made great progress since the war. Alone among the warring powers in this respect she stands
higher than she did in 1914. She stands higher than she has done at any time since the great Napoleon. The
Government it is true is in direful need of money, and has always a difficult political path to tread, but both
the French individual and the nation as a whole have gained enormously. Peoples and governments are too
often confused, and the plight of M. Briand sometimes deceives people as to the position of France.
"France is bankrupt," says a leading publicist, in one of the London reviews. But the French people are not
bankrupt. Far from it. On the average they are a very rich people. Even in the devastated areas there has been
a rapid financial recovery due to the hard work and perseverance of the returned inhabitants. The constant talk
about the ruined North of France has been more a matter of propaganda than verity. Though war was not
carried into Yorkshire and Lancashire, it is quite clear that England is to-day in a much more ruinous state
than France. The French drove our sentimental politicians through carefully chosen routes and showed them
the grand spectacle of war's ruins. And they were impressed. But there is ruin which cannot be seen from a car
window. An economic dry-rot at the heart of a country is more terrible than excoriations on the surface.
In Paris you realize at once a remarkable change in atmosphere after London. The barometer has risen. It
suddenly feels better to be alive. There is a sense of something in the air; something doing. Yes, the people are
smarter and cleaner; their eyes are brighter. The streets are better kept. Amour propre is expressed in all the
shop windows, in the manners of 'bus conductors, waiters, salesmen, chance acquaintances, in the tone of the
Press. What is the matter? Can it be that Paris has become first-class and London has ceased to be first-class?
Paris was not like this in 1913. She was decidedly down-at-heel. There was no particular verve or dignity in
the ways of Parisians. They carried on in a second-rate way in a civilization which to the general European
traveller seemed inferior both to London and Berlin.
Something has intervened, and that something is not merely war but victory. Victory has intervened and has
fed the French soul with the thing which it required. We know now more of what France was like before
1870. Evidently for fifty years she has lived in a state of depression and spiritual thraldom, and now she has
escaped and is more herself. France has recovered her national pride and self-consciousness. She has
expanded. Increase of territory and of national interests has given to French self-consciousness more room,
and you behold the opposite type of development to that which is in process in Germany, where national
self-consciousness has been turned in on itself. That is why it is good to be alive in Paris and not so good in
London or Berlin.
It is possible to be winning and still remain down-hearted, but this is not the case at Paris. The supposed fear
of Germany is only political bluff. France fears no Germans. She fears nobody. Perhaps she ought to fear--for
the far future. But she has always had a belief in herself and her way of doing things and an inbred contempt
for other races as for barbarians, and it has only needed this colossal victory in a world-war to set her on her
pedestal of fame once more.
It was in doubt for a while before the war, but now it is sure--all the world must learn French; if it cannot
speak French it must at least think French. French is the universal medium of civilization and good manners.
The emissaries of France in every country of Europe carry France's civilizing mission and tell the foreign
statesmen of the young States what to do and how to do it. As England sends missionaries to spread the gospel
of Christ so France sends hers to spread the gospel of France.
The sense of this glorious activity comes back to the heart and the brain at Paris, and it is small wonder that
steps are lighter and eyes brighter.
If only the Government could fill its exchequer! France lives by loans, and even an interest of six per cent free
of income-tax will not tempt the citizens to invest sufficient money to pay the Government's way. The
Government cannot raise its revenue by taxes. An Englishman slavishly pays half his income in taxes, but not
a Frenchman. It is difficult to get five per cent. And there one comes suddenly upon France's greatest vice and
weakness--avarice.
It is France's penuriousness and meanness and her exaggerated thrift that stands most in the way of her
material greatness now. The Government needs to spend a great deal more than it used to do before the war,
must spend it, if it is to do the best for France. France has the consciousness of being the greatest power in
Europe, and she has the will to play the rôle of the greatest power, and she is called upon to do things in style.
France is romantic in ambition, she is vivacious and happy and dignified, till she is called upon to pay
anything. Then the Frenchwoman in the French nation reveals herself. The eyes become small, the lips thin,
the cheeks pale, the whole being shrinks into itself and goes on the defensive.
France wishes to run this new Europe which has come into being, on the old lines, playing with hatreds and
jealousies and conflicting interests as a chess-player with his pieces. The idealists of England and America
want to eradicate the jealousies and hatreds and run the same new Europe on principles of pure love. France
says human nature never changes. Britain and America say human nature has progressed with them and it
must progress similarly in Europe. France's final answer is laughter. So constant is France's amusement at the
expense of the Anglo-Saxon that she has adopted the sourire ironique as something necessary to typical
beauty in a Frenchman.
It is, therefore, not surprising that M. Octave Duplessis in the "Figaro" should find that characteristic work of
H. G. Wells, the "Salvaging of Civilization," quite ridiculous.
Il nous ramene aux rêves ineptes des Fourier et des Cabet, effacant de la surface de ce pauvre globe terraqué
toutes les barrières, aplanissant avec intrépiditée les plus grands obstacles, niant le fait concret des
nationalités, de plus en plus positif pourtant à mesure que progresse la civilisation, et saluant déjà l'aurore du
jour où
Ce globe deplume, sans barbe et sans cheveux Comme un grand potiron roulera dans les cieux
M. Britling nous ramene donc de cent ans en arriéré, au mauvais socialisme primitif de l'époque romantique.
Il ressuscite de poussiéreuses momies.
By denying the possibility of realizing the dream of a world-State or a collective European State, the
Frenchman speaks for his country. France regards the development of European history with simple realism
and without ideals. The only weak link in her chain-mail is the belief in the civilizing mission of France. If
there is no progress why have a mission to civilize?
Perhaps the religious sentimentalism of Western politicians was a revelation to French statesmen. France, for
all her cosmopolitanism, has always been badly informed as to the life of the people in England and America.
Something of the general astonishment was voiced by Clemenceau, if the story of him is true. He is supposed
to have said of Wilson: "He is an excellent man, but he thinks he's Jesus Christ."
In France all excellence is excellence of form. The idea of the growth of the soul and of germinal excellence
of any kind is foreign. For our part in England and America we understand little of form. France therefore can
upon occasion show the world something which no one can deny to be excellent.
The Parisian can very well say in London or New York: "You have much that is large and fine, but it is clear
that you do not understand Art and have very little taste. In France we do things better than this."
He does not put his poilu inconnu in the depths of a cathedral in order to bring an unbelieving crowd into the
house of God, but puts him in the public way under the Arc de Triomphe. He does not say that the soldier died
for King and Country, and then mutilate a text--"Greater love hath no man than this," but he inscribes--"Ici
repose un soldat français mort pour la patrie," and leaves the living to make their own reflections. His Paris is
a city of statues and gardens but it is all dignified, it is all in good taste. Even the houses and the shops
conform to the general idea of the fitness and elegance of Paris.
Among the emblems of the time, however, there is in Paris one statue on exhibition which offends good taste,
and even an Englishman can see that it may become ludicrous. It is the marble figure representing the
"Republique Française pendant la guerre," now placed at the head of the Tuileries Gardens. It is Madame
France wearing a poilu's helmet. There is a look of triumph in her upturned face. France in her has become
younger. Most figures of France are Diana-like, but here apparently is one the tender contour of whose limbs
is not official but intimate. A policeman is in charge, but it verges on the indiscreet to ask him any questions.
One dare be certain that Paris will not accept this statue, for though it expresses something of the new spirit of
France, it is not in perfect taste, it is not quite dignified.
There is something very characteristic of France in the thousands of seeming-widows whom you see clad in
becoming weeds. The widow's veil raises the dignity of the Frenchwoman and confirms her piety so that she
feels like a Madonna when her husband is dead, and loves to walk like one. Some wear this attire without
being widowed--it conforms so well to a secret desire. The demure widow so dressed has much charm. There
is, however, another and a better type, and that is the Joan of Arc type of young Frenchwoman so often
overlooked in a survey of French reality. The new, bright, white marble figure of Joan in the cathedral of
Notre-Dame is worth a prayer for France. One has met Joan in life, she is generally sixteen or seventeen,
ardent, heroic, romantic, with the poetry of Corneille and Racine upon her lips. She is full of effervescent
devotion, impetuous and entirely "pure." What happens to her in modern France it would be difficult to say.
The English do not come and burn her for a witch; but English people do not like the type, do not understand
it, and generally prefer the insincere Madonnas or the Madame Bovarys of France. But to understand France
one must take cognizance of this feminine crusading spirit. Much that is genuine and worth while in France
can be associated with the type of Joan. Even in the midst of modern politics one should look for Joan. French
aspirations has a grand turn. We think of the French as realists, but they are romanticists. They look back and
then look forward. They see events with long black shadows as at sunset. They harangue themselves. In the
English people humour comes to chase the romantic away and it will not let us get into a heroic vein. But not
so with the French. Their humour is weak. So at school, in books, in inscriptions on statues, in public
speeches, you will constantly come upon the heroic, romantic strain, and you will find adjurations to the
French people: "Français, élevez vos âmes et vos résolutions à la hauteur des périls qui fondent sur la patrie.
Il dépend encore de vous de montrer à l'univers ce qu'est un peuple qui ne veut pas périr," as it says on the
Gambetta monument.
This splendid spirit is betrayed by the sordidness of modern life. The exchange for romantic idealism is
cynicism and soullessness. Joan does not remain Joan all her life--if she 'scapes burning she is quickly
destroyed by the world. The philosophy of Voila tout soon possesses her. I always remember the end of
Octave Feuillet's "Histoire d'une jeune Parisienne"--
Dans l'ordre moral, il ne nait point de monstres: Dieu n'en fait pas; mais les hommes en font beaucoup. C'est
ce que les mères ne doivent pas oublier.
In France's plan for Europe there is both the idealistic romantic and the cynical materialistic. If England really
understood the spirit of France she would strengthen the former. And France might really take England into
her confidence. England, and indeed most other nations, see in France a selfish, narrow, matter-of-fact power,
and in seeing these things they help to make France so.
If France took Britain into her confidence she would possibly explain her policy in this way--"The great war
which has just passed was first and foremost a war between Germany and France. The Germans do not
understand us; they loathe and despise our civilization. They have been entirely wrong, but they had the big
battalions on their side. Once they beat us in the field and they took away and subjugated two of our
provinces, almost killing the French spirit there and Germanizing to the utmost of their ability. A second war
has taken place and we, thanks to the help of allies, have won. We have gained an overwhelming victory. The
Germans have made a complete surrender. President Wilson deceived them into thinking that they might
arrange an easy peace, and they surrendered their weapons. France was glad to see her vain enemy fooled and
despoiled of her means of continuing the strife. France, however, never accepted Wilsonian idealism. Why
should she? America has never bled as France has bled. She has never lived in the danger in which France has
lived. She does not understand Europe. But France owed America a great deal of money and could not afford
to offend her. She had the mortifying and difficult rôle to play second to Wilson at the peace-table though first
in sacrifice and first in danger. France's object has been and is to place Germany completely hors de combat.
Her mortal enemy is in her power. France's first desire is not money or territory, but just security. France does
not fear Germany in her present spiritless, unarmed state. France does not fear Germany at all. But the fruit of
victory which she desires is that she should put it entirely out of the power of Germany to return to the
struggle. The League of Nations is being arranged to stop warfare among all races. France does not believe
that that is practicable, human nature being what it is. But France does see that one war of the future can be
eliminated, and that is another Franco-German struggle.
With that in view France has embarked on a real policy embodied in the following programme:--
(1) The complete demilitarization of the German people. We will not allow her to have an army or a navy.
(2) The dismantling of the German Empire. We would undo what Bismarck accomplished; for in destroying
the unity of Germany we should destroy most of its power to reorganize after defeat. The dismantling of
modern Germany implies for us:
(a) Alsace and Lorraine for France. (b) Upper Silesia for Poland. (c) A separate State of Bavaria. (d) A
separate State of Westphalia. (e) A Polish corridor to Dantzig, separating East and West Prussia. (f) No union
between Austria and Germany.
"France is not in favour of plebiscites, as the war was won not by a plebiscite but by a superior number of
cannon. The plebiscite was a Wilson invention and France regards it passively. If plebiscites stand in the way
of a real policy in Europe they ought to be disregarded. As regards questions such as that of the Ruhr Valley
occupation France is ready to take any avenue which leads to a furtherance of her fundamental policy. The
saddling of Germany with an immense indemnity is primarily necessary in order to pay off the war debts of
France and Britain to the United States. For the rest, the indemnity debt can be used as a check on Germany so
that we can watch her."
Such is in any case France's policy. She pursues it in subterranean ways and through intrigue and by all the
old tricks of secret diplomacy, evidently trusting no one but herself. It is unfortunate. Much could be gained
both in England and America by a clear, frank statement.
With regard to Russia there is little of the idealistic spirit in French policy. Her attitude towards Russia has
little to do with her attitude towards Europe as a whole. France does fear that Poland may come to nothing,
and that Germany and Russia may come into vital contact. Otherwise Russia is a place apart. Russia is a place
where many millions of French francs have been lost. France does not understand Russia, does not want to.
France is quite sufficient for France. But she has received a terrible blow in a most sensitive part. France's
vice as we have said is avarice. She does not expect to lose money. France is not like America where one
loses a fortune to-day and makes one to-morrow. In France when you make a fortune you keep it. The Russia
which confiscated foreign holdings and ceased to pay dividends is a thief of portentous guilt to France.
France, therefore, steadfastly opposes that Russia, and she has as steadfastly supported the other Russia which
says she will recognize these old debts and pay them back plus dividends. France disapproved of the original
revolution, but is said to have been persuaded to it by England. France thought the March '17 conspiracy very
risky. And she soon realized that she had been right. Revolution meant repudiation of debt. And Russia will
never pay back her debts now unless in the form of "rights of exploitation."
France backed Koltchak and Yudenitch and Denikin and Wrangel and the Polish War--all for the sake of her
money. Not because she was sorry for the Russians or for the rights of humanity, or because she was
scandalized by Communism. Her plan generally has been to persuade England to supply the outfit and pay for
the expense, but she has also paid somewhat and has thrown good money after bad--the thief gone with so
much and so much to find the thief! Russia is a sore point, an aggravated loss. And now that the
counter-revolutionaries have failed, France is almost as much out of sympathy with the Russian refugees as
she is with the Bolsheviks themselves.
Paris, however, remains the capital of Russia in exile. There are more distinguished Russians there than in any
other capital of Europe, and Russian world-policy is organized from there. It is General Wrangel's civil
headquarters. During the last days I was in Paris the Russian National Congress constituted itself a "National
Union of Russia," dedicated to the task of liberating Russia from the Third International and at the same time
excluding partisans of a Tsaristic restoration. It rejoiced in glowing terms in a Russian army which though
now vanishing was still the hope of Russia. It pronounced against the trade treaties made by Great Britain and
other powers with Soviet Russia, and it passed a resolution recognizing Russia's old debts and commercial
obligations as contracted under the Tsardom.
A national committee of seventy-four members was elected, from Paris, Constantinople, London, Belgrade,
Berlin, Finland, Poland, Switzerland, Sofia, Vienna, Athens, Riga, the United States, and amongst those
elected were the following well-known Russian personalities--Burtsef, Struve, Kartashef, Bunin, Kuprin,
Roditchef, Savitch, Tyrkova, Dioneo.
This powerful organization is likely enough to go back to Russia if Lenin and Trotsky fall. The latter are
doing their utmost to safeguard themselves, but they are weaker than the Tsar was. The Tsardom had most of
the brains and abilities of the Russians at its disposal, but Lenin has driven nearly all the educated and trained
minds out of the country. Russia as an internationalist State is a failure; as a peasant Communist State she has
not succeeded in straightening out the comparatively simple problems of her economic subsistence.
Of course, there are many abstentions from the Russian National Union, and among the most notable is
Milyukof who characterizes their actions as "words without force." Milyukof and Burtsef have quarrelled.
Burtsef stood for backing General Wrangel, but Milyukof has taken a strong line on that matter. He does not
believe that Wrangel can do anything, or that force applied externally can bring Bolshevism down. He
believes in the renovation of Russia from within. Milyukof's contention is undoubtedly sound, but it has
resulted in a wordy warfare in the columns of Burtsef's "Obshy Delo" and Milyukof's "Posledny Novosti,"
both Paris daily papers in Russian which keep up a malevolent cross-fire on one another.
One of the happiest evenings spent in Paris was at Babief's toy theatre--"The Flittermouse," where I saw again
a programme rendered in Moscow in 1914. Russians in themselves are the most unmechanical people, the
most emotional and unexpected in their ways. It is, therefore, curious that they should shine so much when
they pretend that they are dolls, when they take on extra human limitations. In the Russian Ballet it is the
doll-stories of "Petrouchka" and "Boutique Fantasque" which charm most, and so it is in the programme of the
Flittermouse Theatre, "The Parade of the Wooden Soldiers" and the toy-box story of "Katinka" are the
favourites every night.
I was touched, however, by one of their lesser successes, that was called "Minuet," which seemed to have a
national pathos in it.
A young man is sitting on a seat in the garden of Versailles or some such place of formal grandeur. It is after
the revolution and the death of the King--one evening at twilight time--
"How I love to come here and dream a little," says the young man. "This is a beautiful place. And sometimes
one sees strange people, the old courtiers of the King come walking as they used to walk."
Presently an aged man in Court attire appears with a tall, gilded stick in his hand. "The King gave me this,"
says he in a quavering voice. And then an aged dame appears. They will not explain themselves to the young
man, for he cannot understand. How can youth understand those who are old?
The two old courtiers are bent and stiff. But they dance in the late dusk a minuet again. You fear all the time
their stiffness and age will prevent them, but they dance it, not for the young man, but for themselves and for
their King. How poignant it was, how terrible! Like ghosts at Ekaterinburg.
last--so that all, even London, could be related to her. The initiative in European politics is taken by France
and she has the most active policy. Most other States wait to see what France is doing and shape their policies
accordingly. London is generally in opposition to Paris, but English action is so sluggish and so independable
that even those States who loathe the new France are obliged to assume that England does not really count.
With the exception of Greece, England is not giving active support or practical sympathy to any other country
in Europe. But France backs Poles and Turks and Hungarians and Serbs, and is carrying out a grand scheme
of world-policy clearly--if not very effectively.
France has made great progress since the war. Alone among the warring powers in this respect she stands
higher than she did in 1914. She stands higher than she has done at any time since the great Napoleon. The
Government it is true is in direful need of money, and has always a difficult political path to tread, but both
the French individual and the nation as a whole have gained enormously. Peoples and governments are too
often confused, and the plight of M. Briand sometimes deceives people as to the position of France.
"France is bankrupt," says a leading publicist, in one of the London reviews. But the French people are not
bankrupt. Far from it. On the average they are a very rich people. Even in the devastated areas there has been
a rapid financial recovery due to the hard work and perseverance of the returned inhabitants. The constant talk
about the ruined North of France has been more a matter of propaganda than verity. Though war was not
carried into Yorkshire and Lancashire, it is quite clear that England is to-day in a much more ruinous state
than France. The French drove our sentimental politicians through carefully chosen routes and showed them
the grand spectacle of war's ruins. And they were impressed. But there is ruin which cannot be seen from a car
window. An economic dry-rot at the heart of a country is more terrible than excoriations on the surface.
In Paris you realize at once a remarkable change in atmosphere after London. The barometer has risen. It
suddenly feels better to be alive. There is a sense of something in the air; something doing. Yes, the people are
smarter and cleaner; their eyes are brighter. The streets are better kept. Amour propre is expressed in all the
shop windows, in the manners of 'bus conductors, waiters, salesmen, chance acquaintances, in the tone of the
Press. What is the matter? Can it be that Paris has become first-class and London has ceased to be first-class?
Paris was not like this in 1913. She was decidedly down-at-heel. There was no particular verve or dignity in
the ways of Parisians. They carried on in a second-rate way in a civilization which to the general European
traveller seemed inferior both to London and Berlin.
Something has intervened, and that something is not merely war but victory. Victory has intervened and has
fed the French soul with the thing which it required. We know now more of what France was like before
1870. Evidently for fifty years she has lived in a state of depression and spiritual thraldom, and now she has
escaped and is more herself. France has recovered her national pride and self-consciousness. She has
expanded. Increase of territory and of national interests has given to French self-consciousness more room,
and you behold the opposite type of development to that which is in process in Germany, where national
self-consciousness has been turned in on itself. That is why it is good to be alive in Paris and not so good in
London or Berlin.
It is possible to be winning and still remain down-hearted, but this is not the case at Paris. The supposed fear
of Germany is only political bluff. France fears no Germans. She fears nobody. Perhaps she ought to fear--for
the far future. But she has always had a belief in herself and her way of doing things and an inbred contempt
for other races as for barbarians, and it has only needed this colossal victory in a world-war to set her on her
pedestal of fame once more.
It was in doubt for a while before the war, but now it is sure--all the world must learn French; if it cannot
speak French it must at least think French. French is the universal medium of civilization and good manners.
The emissaries of France in every country of Europe carry France's civilizing mission and tell the foreign
statesmen of the young States what to do and how to do it. As England sends missionaries to spread the gospel
of Christ so France sends hers to spread the gospel of France.
The sense of this glorious activity comes back to the heart and the brain at Paris, and it is small wonder that
steps are lighter and eyes brighter.
If only the Government could fill its exchequer! France lives by loans, and even an interest of six per cent free
of income-tax will not tempt the citizens to invest sufficient money to pay the Government's way. The
Government cannot raise its revenue by taxes. An Englishman slavishly pays half his income in taxes, but not
a Frenchman. It is difficult to get five per cent. And there one comes suddenly upon France's greatest vice and
weakness--avarice.
It is France's penuriousness and meanness and her exaggerated thrift that stands most in the way of her
material greatness now. The Government needs to spend a great deal more than it used to do before the war,
must spend it, if it is to do the best for France. France has the consciousness of being the greatest power in
Europe, and she has the will to play the rôle of the greatest power, and she is called upon to do things in style.
France is romantic in ambition, she is vivacious and happy and dignified, till she is called upon to pay
anything. Then the Frenchwoman in the French nation reveals herself. The eyes become small, the lips thin,
the cheeks pale, the whole being shrinks into itself and goes on the defensive.
France wishes to run this new Europe which has come into being, on the old lines, playing with hatreds and
jealousies and conflicting interests as a chess-player with his pieces. The idealists of England and America
want to eradicate the jealousies and hatreds and run the same new Europe on principles of pure love. France
says human nature never changes. Britain and America say human nature has progressed with them and it
must progress similarly in Europe. France's final answer is laughter. So constant is France's amusement at the
expense of the Anglo-Saxon that she has adopted the sourire ironique as something necessary to typical
beauty in a Frenchman.
It is, therefore, not surprising that M. Octave Duplessis in the "Figaro" should find that characteristic work of
H. G. Wells, the "Salvaging of Civilization," quite ridiculous.
Il nous ramene aux rêves ineptes des Fourier et des Cabet, effacant de la surface de ce pauvre globe terraqué
toutes les barrières, aplanissant avec intrépiditée les plus grands obstacles, niant le fait concret des
nationalités, de plus en plus positif pourtant à mesure que progresse la civilisation, et saluant déjà l'aurore du
jour où
Ce globe deplume, sans barbe et sans cheveux Comme un grand potiron roulera dans les cieux
M. Britling nous ramene donc de cent ans en arriéré, au mauvais socialisme primitif de l'époque romantique.
Il ressuscite de poussiéreuses momies.
By denying the possibility of realizing the dream of a world-State or a collective European State, the
Frenchman speaks for his country. France regards the development of European history with simple realism
and without ideals. The only weak link in her chain-mail is the belief in the civilizing mission of France. If
there is no progress why have a mission to civilize?
Perhaps the religious sentimentalism of Western politicians was a revelation to French statesmen. France, for
all her cosmopolitanism, has always been badly informed as to the life of the people in England and America.
Something of the general astonishment was voiced by Clemenceau, if the story of him is true. He is supposed
to have said of Wilson: "He is an excellent man, but he thinks he's Jesus Christ."
In France all excellence is excellence of form. The idea of the growth of the soul and of germinal excellence
of any kind is foreign. For our part in England and America we understand little of form. France therefore can
upon occasion show the world something which no one can deny to be excellent.
The Parisian can very well say in London or New York: "You have much that is large and fine, but it is clear
that you do not understand Art and have very little taste. In France we do things better than this."
He does not put his poilu inconnu in the depths of a cathedral in order to bring an unbelieving crowd into the
house of God, but puts him in the public way under the Arc de Triomphe. He does not say that the soldier died
for King and Country, and then mutilate a text--"Greater love hath no man than this," but he inscribes--"Ici
repose un soldat français mort pour la patrie," and leaves the living to make their own reflections. His Paris is
a city of statues and gardens but it is all dignified, it is all in good taste. Even the houses and the shops
conform to the general idea of the fitness and elegance of Paris.
Among the emblems of the time, however, there is in Paris one statue on exhibition which offends good taste,
and even an Englishman can see that it may become ludicrous. It is the marble figure representing the
"Republique Française pendant la guerre," now placed at the head of the Tuileries Gardens. It is Madame
France wearing a poilu's helmet. There is a look of triumph in her upturned face. France in her has become
younger. Most figures of France are Diana-like, but here apparently is one the tender contour of whose limbs
is not official but intimate. A policeman is in charge, but it verges on the indiscreet to ask him any questions.
One dare be certain that Paris will not accept this statue, for though it expresses something of the new spirit of
France, it is not in perfect taste, it is not quite dignified.
There is something very characteristic of France in the thousands of seeming-widows whom you see clad in
becoming weeds. The widow's veil raises the dignity of the Frenchwoman and confirms her piety so that she
feels like a Madonna when her husband is dead, and loves to walk like one. Some wear this attire without
being widowed--it conforms so well to a secret desire. The demure widow so dressed has much charm. There
is, however, another and a better type, and that is the Joan of Arc type of young Frenchwoman so often
overlooked in a survey of French reality. The new, bright, white marble figure of Joan in the cathedral of
Notre-Dame is worth a prayer for France. One has met Joan in life, she is generally sixteen or seventeen,
ardent, heroic, romantic, with the poetry of Corneille and Racine upon her lips. She is full of effervescent
devotion, impetuous and entirely "pure." What happens to her in modern France it would be difficult to say.
The English do not come and burn her for a witch; but English people do not like the type, do not understand
it, and generally prefer the insincere Madonnas or the Madame Bovarys of France. But to understand France
one must take cognizance of this feminine crusading spirit. Much that is genuine and worth while in France
can be associated with the type of Joan. Even in the midst of modern politics one should look for Joan. French
aspirations has a grand turn. We think of the French as realists, but they are romanticists. They look back and
then look forward. They see events with long black shadows as at sunset. They harangue themselves. In the
English people humour comes to chase the romantic away and it will not let us get into a heroic vein. But not
so with the French. Their humour is weak. So at school, in books, in inscriptions on statues, in public
speeches, you will constantly come upon the heroic, romantic strain, and you will find adjurations to the
French people: "Français, élevez vos âmes et vos résolutions à la hauteur des périls qui fondent sur la patrie.
Il dépend encore de vous de montrer à l'univers ce qu'est un peuple qui ne veut pas périr," as it says on the
Gambetta monument.
This splendid spirit is betrayed by the sordidness of modern life. The exchange for romantic idealism is
cynicism and soullessness. Joan does not remain Joan all her life--if she 'scapes burning she is quickly
destroyed by the world. The philosophy of Voila tout soon possesses her. I always remember the end of
Octave Feuillet's "Histoire d'une jeune Parisienne"--
Dans l'ordre moral, il ne nait point de monstres: Dieu n'en fait pas; mais les hommes en font beaucoup. C'est
ce que les mères ne doivent pas oublier.
In France's plan for Europe there is both the idealistic romantic and the cynical materialistic. If England really
understood the spirit of France she would strengthen the former. And France might really take England into
her confidence. England, and indeed most other nations, see in France a selfish, narrow, matter-of-fact power,
and in seeing these things they help to make France so.
If France took Britain into her confidence she would possibly explain her policy in this way--"The great war
which has just passed was first and foremost a war between Germany and France. The Germans do not
understand us; they loathe and despise our civilization. They have been entirely wrong, but they had the big
battalions on their side. Once they beat us in the field and they took away and subjugated two of our
provinces, almost killing the French spirit there and Germanizing to the utmost of their ability. A second war
has taken place and we, thanks to the help of allies, have won. We have gained an overwhelming victory. The
Germans have made a complete surrender. President Wilson deceived them into thinking that they might
arrange an easy peace, and they surrendered their weapons. France was glad to see her vain enemy fooled and
despoiled of her means of continuing the strife. France, however, never accepted Wilsonian idealism. Why
should she? America has never bled as France has bled. She has never lived in the danger in which France has
lived. She does not understand Europe. But France owed America a great deal of money and could not afford
to offend her. She had the mortifying and difficult rôle to play second to Wilson at the peace-table though first
in sacrifice and first in danger. France's object has been and is to place Germany completely hors de combat.
Her mortal enemy is in her power. France's first desire is not money or territory, but just security. France does
not fear Germany in her present spiritless, unarmed state. France does not fear Germany at all. But the fruit of
victory which she desires is that she should put it entirely out of the power of Germany to return to the
struggle. The League of Nations is being arranged to stop warfare among all races. France does not believe
that that is practicable, human nature being what it is. But France does see that one war of the future can be
eliminated, and that is another Franco-German struggle.
With that in view France has embarked on a real policy embodied in the following programme:--
(1) The complete demilitarization of the German people. We will not allow her to have an army or a navy.
(2) The dismantling of the German Empire. We would undo what Bismarck accomplished; for in destroying
the unity of Germany we should destroy most of its power to reorganize after defeat. The dismantling of
modern Germany implies for us:
(a) Alsace and Lorraine for France. (b) Upper Silesia for Poland. (c) A separate State of Bavaria. (d) A
separate State of Westphalia. (e) A Polish corridor to Dantzig, separating East and West Prussia. (f) No union
between Austria and Germany.
"France is not in favour of plebiscites, as the war was won not by a plebiscite but by a superior number of
cannon. The plebiscite was a Wilson invention and France regards it passively. If plebiscites stand in the way
of a real policy in Europe they ought to be disregarded. As regards questions such as that of the Ruhr Valley
occupation France is ready to take any avenue which leads to a furtherance of her fundamental policy. The
saddling of Germany with an immense indemnity is primarily necessary in order to pay off the war debts of
France and Britain to the United States. For the rest, the indemnity debt can be used as a check on Germany so
that we can watch her."
Such is in any case France's policy. She pursues it in subterranean ways and through intrigue and by all the
old tricks of secret diplomacy, evidently trusting no one but herself. It is unfortunate. Much could be gained
both in England and America by a clear, frank statement.
With regard to Russia there is little of the idealistic spirit in French policy. Her attitude towards Russia has
little to do with her attitude towards Europe as a whole. France does fear that Poland may come to nothing,
and that Germany and Russia may come into vital contact. Otherwise Russia is a place apart. Russia is a place
where many millions of French francs have been lost. France does not understand Russia, does not want to.
France is quite sufficient for France. But she has received a terrible blow in a most sensitive part. France's
vice as we have said is avarice. She does not expect to lose money. France is not like America where one
loses a fortune to-day and makes one to-morrow. In France when you make a fortune you keep it. The Russia
which confiscated foreign holdings and ceased to pay dividends is a thief of portentous guilt to France.
France, therefore, steadfastly opposes that Russia, and she has as steadfastly supported the other Russia which
says she will recognize these old debts and pay them back plus dividends. France disapproved of the original
revolution, but is said to have been persuaded to it by England. France thought the March '17 conspiracy very
risky. And she soon realized that she had been right. Revolution meant repudiation of debt. And Russia will
never pay back her debts now unless in the form of "rights of exploitation."
France backed Koltchak and Yudenitch and Denikin and Wrangel and the Polish War--all for the sake of her
money. Not because she was sorry for the Russians or for the rights of humanity, or because she was
scandalized by Communism. Her plan generally has been to persuade England to supply the outfit and pay for
the expense, but she has also paid somewhat and has thrown good money after bad--the thief gone with so
much and so much to find the thief! Russia is a sore point, an aggravated loss. And now that the
counter-revolutionaries have failed, France is almost as much out of sympathy with the Russian refugees as
she is with the Bolsheviks themselves.
Paris, however, remains the capital of Russia in exile. There are more distinguished Russians there than in any
other capital of Europe, and Russian world-policy is organized from there. It is General Wrangel's civil
headquarters. During the last days I was in Paris the Russian National Congress constituted itself a "National
Union of Russia," dedicated to the task of liberating Russia from the Third International and at the same time
excluding partisans of a Tsaristic restoration. It rejoiced in glowing terms in a Russian army which though
now vanishing was still the hope of Russia. It pronounced against the trade treaties made by Great Britain and
other powers with Soviet Russia, and it passed a resolution recognizing Russia's old debts and commercial
obligations as contracted under the Tsardom.
A national committee of seventy-four members was elected, from Paris, Constantinople, London, Belgrade,
Berlin, Finland, Poland, Switzerland, Sofia, Vienna, Athens, Riga, the United States, and amongst those
elected were the following well-known Russian personalities--Burtsef, Struve, Kartashef, Bunin, Kuprin,
Roditchef, Savitch, Tyrkova, Dioneo.
This powerful organization is likely enough to go back to Russia if Lenin and Trotsky fall. The latter are
doing their utmost to safeguard themselves, but they are weaker than the Tsar was. The Tsardom had most of
the brains and abilities of the Russians at its disposal, but Lenin has driven nearly all the educated and trained
minds out of the country. Russia as an internationalist State is a failure; as a peasant Communist State she has
not succeeded in straightening out the comparatively simple problems of her economic subsistence.
Of course, there are many abstentions from the Russian National Union, and among the most notable is
Milyukof who characterizes their actions as "words without force." Milyukof and Burtsef have quarrelled.
Burtsef stood for backing General Wrangel, but Milyukof has taken a strong line on that matter. He does not
believe that Wrangel can do anything, or that force applied externally can bring Bolshevism down. He
believes in the renovation of Russia from within. Milyukof's contention is undoubtedly sound, but it has
resulted in a wordy warfare in the columns of Burtsef's "Obshy Delo" and Milyukof's "Posledny Novosti,"
both Paris daily papers in Russian which keep up a malevolent cross-fire on one another.
One of the happiest evenings spent in Paris was at Babief's toy theatre--"The Flittermouse," where I saw again
a programme rendered in Moscow in 1914. Russians in themselves are the most unmechanical people, the
most emotional and unexpected in their ways. It is, therefore, curious that they should shine so much when
they pretend that they are dolls, when they take on extra human limitations. In the Russian Ballet it is the
doll-stories of "Petrouchka" and "Boutique Fantasque" which charm most, and so it is in the programme of the
Flittermouse Theatre, "The Parade of the Wooden Soldiers" and the toy-box story of "Katinka" are the
favourites every night.
I was touched, however, by one of their lesser successes, that was called "Minuet," which seemed to have a
national pathos in it.
A young man is sitting on a seat in the garden of Versailles or some such place of formal grandeur. It is after
the revolution and the death of the King--one evening at twilight time--
"How I love to come here and dream a little," says the young man. "This is a beautiful place. And sometimes
one sees strange people, the old courtiers of the King come walking as they used to walk."
Presently an aged man in Court attire appears with a tall, gilded stick in his hand. "The King gave me this,"
says he in a quavering voice. And then an aged dame appears. They will not explain themselves to the young
man, for he cannot understand. How can youth understand those who are old?
The two old courtiers are bent and stiff. But they dance in the late dusk a minuet again. You fear all the time
their stiffness and age will prevent them, but they dance it, not for the young man, but for themselves and for
their King. How poignant it was, how terrible! Like ghosts at Ekaterinburg.
No comments:
Post a Comment