The Press Saturday, April 1, 1922. The Philistine.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17419, 1 April 1922, Page 10

The Press Saturday, April 1, 1922. The Philistine.

"We are sometimes tempted, possibly by the lust for contradicting, to fed sympathy with those persons and peoples ttfi© world has agreed to put under its ban. There must' have been another aide to the story if only it ootid have been put upon record, and we hesitate to believe that all the men of Soli were shaky in their grammar, all early " Cretians" Jiahitual liars and gluttons, al Carthaginians confirmed oathbreakers. But who would be daring enough to put. in a good word lor the people of Philistia, whoso name has passed into a proverb as the hapless possessors of all those undesirable qualities of mind and character which the children of lightr—and naturally we nil like to think of ourselves as children of light—would shudder to display. Oddly enough this metaphorical use of the term Pthilistiue came from Germany, a country we have come to regard as Philistia up to date. But it oame from the Germany of Heine, a Germany that gloried in ideas, nebulous at times, no doubt—does not Heine himself say somewhere that England had engrossed both sea and land and left to Germany only the clouds? —but still genuine ideas, and not: from the later Germany which became a willing convert to the dreary gospel of efficiency. It was Matthew Arnold, in olio of his less "urbane " if more "vivar "ciou3,'' moods, wlho transplanted the. term from Germany to England,' and applied it without pity or ruth to the vast majority of his fellow-countrymen, " humdrum people, slaves to routine, "enemies to light; stugid and oppres- " sive, but at the same time very "strong." And he looked forward mournfully, so at least he says in the j famous Preface to his brilliant "Essays "in Criticism," to the eventual triumph of Philistia, when we should all go into drab—"the drab of tlhe earnest, "prosaic, practical, austerely literal "future,'' when gaiety of heart should bo proscribed, and vivacity of phrase looked on askance, and we should all •' yawn in one another's faces with "the dismallest, the most unimpeach- " able gravity." It was a gloomy outlook, but after all, .it appears. Matthew Arnold was disquieting himself' in vain, for we have it on the high authority of tne British Minister for Education —and surely we are right in claiming that what a Minister for Education does not know is simply not knowledge—that "it is a great mistake to paint the "Englishman, as a natural and inerad- " icable (sic) Philistine, concerned only

" inth his meals and his bank-balances, " and his athletic 6ports." Far from it. Ho lelonga to a people "rich in " every kind and description of artistic "impulse and skill.'" But unfortunately Mr Fisher, in spite of this robust profession of faith, felt compelled to qualify his comfortable words. It seems after all, thit theso treasure:! of "artis- " tic impulse and skill" are largely latent and potential rather than actual and revealed. Organisation is the word to conjure with in these psychological days. It appeal's that wo as a people are not organised, and, that owing to this defect we waste "much of that " treasure in our careless English way " and content ourselves with a great " deal of quite unnecessary ugliness out "of sheer laziness,'' and what Mr Fisher, a true Liberal, naturally calls " Conservatism." Wo are rot Philistines, at least not "natural and ineradicable Philistines " but nevertheless, we are still, like the! shepherd in the old play who had never been at court, in- a parlous state "Thero is plenty of "music :n owe people, but very, very " little musical There is "plenty of art in our people, but as " yet a wholly imperfect use of our "artistic resources jin industry." When one comes ip think of it, this sounds not unlike &' modern variation of Arnold's favourite theme of "the "few and the many," and we can well imagine the sardonic irony with which that master of verbal fence would have thrust the rapier of hiß dialectic through the weak places in Mr Fisher's rhetorical harness. But though Arnold has long since been gathered to his fathers, we still have agreeable essayists among us that delight to play delicately with a phrase, and one such haa been inspired by Mr Fisher's eloquence to contribute to the pages of "The "Times Educational Supplement" some observations on the Philistine that will repay consideration. Perhaps, he says, Mr Fisher has been listening to M. Coue. and has learnt from him the art of suggestion. "He encourages us, in- " stead of reviling us, and tells us that " we are already what he wishes us to "be," after the too complaisant fashion of an age that has learnt to shut its eyes to facts, and to assure itself that its dreams and vain imaginings have come true. But, Mr Fisher apart, it is worth enquiry whether any Philistinism is "natural and ineradicable." Is it not rather a morbid condition of ilon-natural disease? Wo are told on high authority nowadays that the natural man reacts to truth, goodness and beauty, so that it would seem as if the Philistine were one who has lost in whole or in part his normal power of reaction. "It is not merely 'Jth§, sense of beauty he lacks, but "ratiier that he has chosen or fallen "into a way of life which makes him " more and more insensitive to all "things that cannot be eaten or pos- •' sessed, or in some way used." "Use" and "practicality" have become the gods of his idolatry, and the useful and the practical are for him only those things that make for mechanical efficiency, and secure a success measurable in terms of a concrete and tangible reward. "A diligent scholar is a Philis- " tine if he values all that he has learnt "in examination terms; already he "has contracted a disease which we " may call metaphysical, since it implies " a certain view of the universe; and " he sees all things, even his own works, "in terms of that disease." Th© Puritan despised art because' it distracted his attention from the other worldly goal of his, pilgrimage, and was therefore, for him, sinful. The Philistine despises art, as he despises pure science and philosophy, because he doesn't see how he can make it pay cash dividends.

" And behind all thlis materialism "which seems to us so wicked and " brutal, there is always a pathetic des"pair and refusal of happiness, a "sense that the universe is hard and "sinister, and that one can escape "disaster in it only by consenting, in " one's own way of life, to its malign- " ity."' For the Philistine has lost his belief in the Kingdom of God, and his heart is the bondman of a grovelling fear. Like the South Sea devilworshipper, he has missed the joy of life, and 'so missed all worth having.

And is there any cure? Not, one fears, for the actual victims of the disease, whose wills are paralysed and their natures warped, but possibly for the potential Philistine of to-morrow. He can be r©-oriented, educated out of his fear, indoctrinated with hope, and taught to "ask in action" for the happiness and the joy that should be his by birthright. And "to ask in action" is to do the things that are worth doing not for rowards and secondary ends, but for their own sake. It is well to end on a eursum corda, but might not the complete elimination of tho Philistine, remove an element of gladness from the. lives of the very elect?