Editor's Table [pp. 185-187]

EDITOR'S TABLE.
EDITOR'S TABLE.
O NE would suppose that love and hatred
were sufficiently distinct in their char acteristics to admit of no confusion in our
judgments of them.
There is, accurately, no confusion in our es timates of these two grand passions; we know
exactly what they are. But, as human motives
are very complex; as good and evil mingle
strangely and inextricably in our desires, our
purposes, and our likings; as our passions
are sometimes enlisted for the concrete, and
sometimes for the abstract-it happens that
love and hatred are by no means so simple
and unequivocal in their manifestations as to
enable us always to justly measure their ex tent or judge of their strength.
These generalizations have been prompted
by the perusal of the correspondence of a
capable American writer, now abroad, who
assures his readers that no genuine friendliness exists on the part of the English people
toward Americans. There is a dormant hatred in the hidden heart of England, he thinks,
which may be modified in individual cases,
and sometimes be persuaded to conceal its
animtes in complimentary interchanges of
courtesy, but which is nevertheless deeply
rooted and unconquerable. Without directly
disputing this correspondent's conclusions, we
may be better able to judge of their probable
accuracy by giving a little consideration to
the character of the antipathies and affinities
felt and expressed by different nationalities
and different classes.
It may be almost set down as a rule that
everybody hates everybody else. We are very
far from being advocates of any doctrine or
gospel of hate; indeed, we are quite ready to
paradoxically offset this assertion of a general
hate by another proclamation of a directly
opposite character-which is, that it may be
almost set down as a rule that everybody has
a liking for everybody else! We are not
going to be seduced from these very broad
generalizations by the army of exceptions
that may, can, and will, be marshaled against
them. In thousands of practical experiences
the axioms are not true, we admit, and yet
they do contain a core of truth, which let us
proceed to apply and elucidate.
Few things are more surprising and perplexing than the sympathies and antipathies
of people, as we see them in their various
exhibitions-now in one group or in behalf
of one principle, now recombining or redivided in other groups in defense of other
issues. If we take a group of fifty men of
various localities, we should be enabled to
find almost every man united with every other
man on some question, and bitterly opposed
to each of the fifty, in turn, on some important
or at least heart-felt issue. If this group of
fifty were composed of two nationalities, we
should have at the start a single line of demarcation; and, if we chose to fan the flame
of their national antagonism, we would soon
see a furious dispute, in which the dormant
hatreds of each class for the other would
break out into fierce denunciations. But, if
with a word we could magically change the
subject of dispute into one of religion, we
should see in an instant some of the most
bitter haters in purely national differences
heartily cooperating with their former op ponents in the new discussion. If our im aginary group were Americans and English men, we should see all the Protestants of
every Church, American and English, united
against the Catholics, without regard to their
nationality or other affinities. If we set the
different sects of the Protestants against each
other, the united group of supporters in op position to papacy would immediately be at
loggerheads, and sympathy change, as if by
magic, into antipathy. It would not be diffi cult, out of this discord, to immediately re establish peace on some common ground of
dislike-such as hatred of the Turks, for
instance-or on some common ground of
liking-such as fraternity in one of the arts,
or fellowship in a club or society.
It is very easy to mistake popular ebulli tion of feeling. It is quite true, there are
dormant hatreds in the bosom of every one;
but these are hatreds mainly for abstractionsfor things which momentarily take personal
form in any given dispute, but become abstractions again the moment other issues
arise. One need not go to England to find
what may be called geographical hatreds.
There is apparently an irreconcilable quarrel
between Northerners and Southerners; there
are prejudices and antagonisms between Western and Eastern people; there are continually
distinct local animosities between rival towns.
One bent upon eliciting popular sentiment
might readily come to believe that Chicago
and St. Louis, or Philadelphia and New York,
were ready to despoil each other. The local
prejudices in these cities might easily be
fanned into open warfare, just as national
prejudices in England and America could be
inflamed into disastrous conflict. Hence we
need not assume that the report of a national dislike for us in England is going to
breed discord. Of course it may; of course
it can; and herein comes the use of these
international courtesies, this "puling at public dinners about the bonds of union between England and America," as the correspondent we have quoted calls some of the
compliments England and America have paid
each other. These compliments and amenities may not always be sincere; they may be
forced and affected; but they serve to bring
up and strengthen those likings and sympathies which, no less than hatreds, lie dormant
in every heart.
So complex and intermingled are men's
likes and dislikes that it is often quite uncer.
tain whether they have individual affections
at all beyond their households. But it is
almost as certain that they have no individual
hatreds. As we have already intimated, it is
not persons but things that stir their personal
animosities. No nation and no locality is
ever entirely in accord with any other locality
or nation-that is, there are inborn national
and local ways of looking at things that are
as tenacious as life-and yet, on religious
or other grounds, two peoples thus nationally
or locally separated may be bound together
in the closest fraternal relations. What are
called hatreds are commonly differences tem porarily expanding into antipathies; as an.
tipathies they may remain, if there are en couragement and stimulating influences; but
they readily succumb under other condi tions. Roots of abundant hatreds are in us
all; and so are there roots of abundant loves.
We need not despair when the first is upper most; we must not be too confident when the
second appears to have united us all: and so,
in the light of this philosophy, and all things
considered, we shall believe that, with simply
ordinary wisdom on our part, the "dormant
hatred" of England is not likely to bring us
any great mischief.
- The English bishops, like the Ameri can presidents, are more often chosen from
among the mediocrities than the greater in tellectual lights; but this cannot be said of
the late Bishop Wilberforce of Winchester,
who died from a fall from his horse while
riding across-country. He was a man of exceptional accomplishments, both as a prelate
and as a man of the world. No dignitary of
the Church reached, in his time, to the eminence which he attained early in life, and
which he maintained down to the period of
his death. He was less learned than Bishop
Thirlwall ofSt. David's; less gently pious than
Archbishop Tait of Canterbury; less powerful as a rhetorician than Bishop Magee of
Peterborough; less independent and broadminded than Bishop Temple of Exeter; but
he seemed to combine characteristics, typifying the political, and aristocratic, and social,
as well as the theological side of the Established Church. BishopWilberforce was more
like an old-time than a modern prelate, for he
was an ardent politician, and in other days
might have been chancellor or premier; he
took a keen delight in the amenities of society, and was worldly in the best sense; he
was a fine conversationalist, full of humor and
high spirits, active and genial in temperament, universally popular with high and low,
a man of attractive presence and winning
ways, besides being, on the whole, the most
eloquent and effective orator in the Church.
Dr. Wilberforce was essentially an aristocrat
and a courtier, without being either haughty
or a sycophant. He inherited a name which,
though not familiar on the roll of the Conqueror's followers, or of the heroes of the
Holy Wars, or the Wars of the Roses, was a
passport to the best society, and a step toward early and rapid promotion. Wilberforce
the philanthropist won a title to considera
1873.]
185