i have cast about widely to find a title for this section; and i confess that the word “imperialism” is a clumsy version of my meaning. but no other word came nearer; “militarism” would have been even more misleading, and “the superman” makes nonsense of any discussion that he enters. perhaps, upon the whole, the word “caesarism” would have been better; but i desire a popular word; and imperialism (as the reader will perceive) does cover for the most part the men and theories that i mean to discuss.

this small confusion is increased, however, by the fact that i do also disbelieve in imperialism in its popular sense, as a mode or theory of the patriotic sentiment of this country. but popular imperialism in england has very little to do with the sort of caesarean imperialism i wish to sketch. i differ from the colonial idealism of rhodes’ and kipling; but i do not think, as some of its opponents do, that it is an insolent creation of english harshness and rapacity. imperialism, i think, is a fiction created, not by english hardness, but by english softness; nay, in a sense, even by english kindness.

the reasons for believing in australia are mostly as sentimental as the most sentimental reasons for believing in heaven. new south wales is quite literally regarded as a place where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest; that is, a paradise for uncles who have turned dishonest and for nephews who are born tired. british columbia is in strict sense a fairyland, it is a world where a magic and irrational luck is supposed to attend the youngest sons. this strange optimism about the ends of the earth is an english weakness; but to show that it is not a coldness or a harshness it is quite sufficient to say that no one shared it more than that gigantic english sentimentalist—the great charles dickens. the end of “david copperfield” is unreal not merely because it is an optimistic ending, but because it is an imperialistic ending. the decorous british happiness planned out for david copperfield and agnes would be embarrassed by the perpetual presence of the hopeless tragedy of emily, or the more hopeless farce of micawber. therefore, both emily and micawber are shipped off to a vague colony where changes come over them with no conceivable cause, except the climate. the tragic woman becomes contented and the comic man becomes responsible, solely as the result of a sea voyage and the first sight of a kangaroo.

to imperialism in the light political sense, therefore, my only objection is that it is an illusion of comfort; that an empire whose heart is failing should be specially proud of the extremities, is to me no more sublime a fact than that an old dandy whose brain is gone should still be proud of his legs. it consoles men for the evident ugliness and apathy of england with legends of fair youth and heroic strenuousness in distant continents and islands. a man can sit amid the squalor of seven dials and feel that life is innocent and godlike in the bush or on the veldt. just so a man might sit in the squalor of seven dials and feel that life was innocent and godlike in brixton and surbiton. brixton and surbiton are “new”; they are expanding; they are “nearer to nature,” in the sense that they have eaten up nature mile by mile. the only objection is the objection of fact. the young men of brixton are not young giants. the lovers of surbiton are not all pagan poets, singing with the sweet energy of the spring. nor are the people of the colonies when you meet them young giants or pagan poets. they are mostly cockneys who have lost their last music of real things by getting out of the sound of bow bells. mr. rudyard kipling, a man of real though decadent genius, threw a theoretic glamour over them which is already fading. mr. kipling is, in a precise and rather startling sense, the exception that proves the rule. for he has imagination, of an oriental and cruel kind, but he has it, not because he grew up in a new country, but precisely because he grew up in the oldest country upon earth. he is rooted in a past—an asiatic past. he might never have written “kabul river” if he had been born in melbourne.

i say frankly, therefore (lest there should be any air of evasion), that imperialism in its common patriotic pretensions appears to me both weak and perilous. it is the attempt of a european country to create a kind of sham europe which it can dominate, instead of the real europe, which it can only share. it is a love of living with one’s inferiors. the notion of restoring the roman empire by oneself and for oneself is a dream that has haunted every christian nation in a different shape and in almost every shape as a snare. the spanish are a consistent and conservative people; therefore they embodied that attempt at empire in long and lingering dynasties. the french are a violent people, and therefore they twice conquered that empire by violence of arms. the english are above all a poetical and optimistic people; and therefore their empire is something vague and yet sympathetic, something distant and yet dear. but this dream of theirs of being powerful in the uttermost places, though a native weakness, is still a weakness in them; much more of a weakness than gold was to spain or glory to napoleon. if ever we were in collision with our real brothers and rivals we should leave all this fancy out of account. we should no more dream of pitting australian armies against german than of pitting tasmanian sculpture against french. i have thus explained, lest anyone should accuse me of concealing an unpopular attitude, why i do not believe in imperialism as commonly understood. i think it not merely an occasional wrong to other peoples, but a continuous feebleness, a running sore, in my own. but it is also true that i have dwelt on this imperialism that is an amiable delusion partly in order to show how different it is from the deeper, more sinister and yet more persuasive thing that i have been forced to call imperialism for the convenience of this chapter. in order to get to the root of this evil and quite un-english imperialism we must cast back and begin anew with a more general discussion of the first needs of human intercourse.