a famous and epigrammatic author said that life copied literature; it seems clear that life really caricatures it. i suggested recently that the germans submitted to, and even admired, a solemn and theatrical assertion of authority. a few hours after i had sent up my "copy," i saw the first announcement of the affair of the comic captain at koepenick. the most absurd part of this absurd fraud (at least, to english eyes) is one which, oddly enough, has received comparatively little comment. i mean the point at which the mayor asked for a warrant, and the captain pointed to the bayonets of his soldiery and said. "these are my authority." one would have thought any one would have known that no soldier would talk like that. the dupes were blamed for not knowing that the man wore the wrong cap or the wrong sash, or had his sword buckled on the wrong way; but these are technicalities which they might surely be excused for not knowing. i certainly should not know if a soldier's sash were on inside out or his cap on behind before. but i should know uncommonly well that genuine professional soldiers do not talk like adelphi villains and utter theatrical epigrams in praise of abstract violence.
we can see this more clearly, perhaps, if we suppose it to be the case of any other dignified and clearly distinguishable profession. suppose a bishop called upon me. my great modesty and my rather distant reverence for the higher clergy might lead me certainly to a strong suspicion that any bishop who called on me was a bogus bishop. but if i wished to test his genuineness i should not dream of attempting to do so by examining the shape of his apron or the way his gaiters were done up. i have not the remotest idea of the way his gaiters ought to be done up. a very vague approximation to an apron would probably take me in; and if he behaved like an approximately christian gentleman he would be safe enough from my detection. but suppose the bishop, the moment he entered the room, fell on his knees on the mat, clasped his hands, and poured out a flood of passionate and somewhat hysterical extempore prayer, i should say at once and without the smallest hesitation, "whatever else this man is, he is not an elderly and wealthy cleric of the church of england. they don't do such things." or suppose a man came to me pretending to be a qualified doctor, and flourished a stethoscope, or what he said was a stethoscope. i am glad to say that i have not even the remotest notion of what a stethoscope looks like; so that if he flourished a musical-box or a coffee-mill it would be all one to me. but i do think that i am not exaggerating my own sagacity if i say that i should begin to suspect the doctor if on entering my room he flung his legs and arms about, crying wildly, "health! health! priceless gift of nature! i possess it! i overflow with it! i yearn to impart it! oh, the sacred rapture of imparting health!" in that case i should suspect him of being rather in a position to receive than to offer medical superintendence.
now, it is no exaggeration at all to say that any one who has ever known any soldiers (i can only answer for english and irish and scotch soldiers) would find it just as easy to believe that a real bishop would grovel on the carpet in a religious ecstasy, or that a real doctor would dance about the drawing-room to show the invigorating effects of his own medicine, as to believe that a soldier, when asked for his authority, would point to a lot of shining weapons and declare symbolically that might was right. of course, a real soldier would go rather red in the face and huskily repeat the proper formula, whatever it was, as that he came in the king's name.
soldiers have many faults, but they have one redeeming merit; they are never worshippers of force. soldiers more than any other men are taught severely and systematically that might is not right. the fact is obvious. the might is in the hundred men who obey. the right (or what is held to be right) is in the one man who commands them. they learn to obey symbols, arbitrary things, stripes on an arm, buttons on a coat, a title, a flag. these may be artificial things; they may be unreasonable things; they may, if you will, be wicked things; but they are weak things. they are not force, and they do not look like force. they are parts of an idea: of the idea of discipline; if you will, of the idea of tyranny; but still an idea. no soldier could possibly say that his own bayonets were his authority. no soldier could possibly say that he came in the name of his own bayonets. it would be as absurd as if a postman said that he came inside his bag. i do not, as i have said, underrate the evils that really do arise from militarism and the military ethic. it tends to give people wooden faces and sometimes wooden heads. it tends moreover (both through its specialisation and through its constant obedience) to a certain loss of real independence and strength of character. this has almost always been found when people made the mistake of turning the soldier into a statesman, under the mistaken impression that he was a strong man. the duke of wellington, for instance, was a strong soldier and therefore a weak statesman. but the soldier is always, by the nature of things, loyal to something. and as long as one is loyal to something one can never be a worshipper of mere force. for mere force, violence in the abstract, is the enemy of anything we love. to love anything is to see it at once under lowering skies of danger. loyalty implies loyalty in misfortune; and when a soldier has accepted any nation's uniform he has already accepted its defeat.
nevertheless, it does appear to be possible in germany for a man to point to fixed bayonets and say, "these are my authority," and yet to convince ordinarily sane men that he is a soldier. if this is so, it does really seem to point to some habit of high-faultin' in the german nation, such as that of which i spoke previously. it almost looks as if the advisers, and even the officials, of the german army had become infected in some degree with the false and feeble doctrine that might is right. as this doctrine is invariably preached by physical weaklings like nietzsche it is a very serious thing even to entertain the supposition that it is affecting men who have really to do military work it would be the end of german soldiers to be affected by german philosophy. energetic people use energy as a means, but only very tired people ever use energy as a reason. athletes go in for games, because athletes desire glory. invalids go in for calisthenics; for invalids (alone of all human beings) desire strength. so long as the german army points to its heraldic eagle and says, "i come in the name of this fierce but fabulous animal," the german army will be all right. if ever it says, "i come in the name of bayonets," the bayonets will break like glass, for only the weak exhibit strength without an aim.
at the same time, as i said before, do not let us forged our own faults. do not let us forget them any the more easily because they are the opposite to the german faults. modern england is too prone to present the spectacle of a person who is enormously delighted because he has not got the contrary disadvantages to his own. the englishman is always saying "my house is not damp" at the moment when his house is on fire. the englishman is always saying, "i have thrown off all traces of anæmia" in the middle of a fit of apoplexy. let us always remember that if an englishman wants to swindle english people, he does not dress up in the uniform of a soldier. if an englishman wants to swindle english people he would as soon think of dressing up in the uniform of a messenger boy. everything in england is done unofficially, casually, by conversations and cliques. the one parliament that really does rule england is a secret parliament; the debates of which must not be published—the cabinet. the debates of the commons are sometimes important; but only the debates in the lobby, never the debates in the house. journalists do control public opinion; but it is not controlled by the arguments they publish—it is controlled by the arguments between the editor and sub-editor, which they do not publish. this casualness is our english vice. it is at once casual and secret. our public life is conducted privately. hence it follows that if an english swindler wished to impress us, the last thing he would think of doing would be to put on a uniform. he would put on a polite slouching air and a careless, expensive suit of clothes; he would stroll up to the mayor, be so awfully sorry to disturb him, find he had forgotten his card-case, mention, as if he were ashamed of it, that he was the duke of mercia, and carry the whole thing through with the air of a man who could get two hundred witnesses and two thousand retainers, but who was too tired to call any of them. and if he did it very well i strongly suspect that he would be as successful as the indefensible captain at koepenick.
our tendency for many centuries past has been, not so much towards creating an aristocracy (which may or may not be a good thing in itself), as towards substituting an aristocracy for everything else. in england we have an aristocracy instead of a religion. the nobility are to the english poor what the saints and the fairies are to the irish poor, what the large devil with a black face was to the scotch poor—the poetry of life. in the same way in england we have an aristocracy instead of a government. we rely on a certain good humour and education in the upper class to interpret to us our contradictory constitution. no educated man born of woman will be quite so absurd as the system that he has to administer. in short, we do not get good laws to restrain bad people. we get good people to restrain bad laws. and last of all we in england have an aristocracy instead of an army. we have an army of which the officers are proud of their families and ashamed of their uniforms. if i were a king of any country whatever, and one of my officers were ashamed of my uniform, i should be ashamed of my officer. beware, then, of the really well-bred and apologetic gentleman whose clothes are at once quiet and fashionable, whose manner is at once diffident and frank. beware how you admit him into your domestic secrets, for he may be a bogus earl. or, worse still, a real one.
