i notice that some papers, especially papers that call themselves patriotic, have fallen into quite a panic over the fact that we have been twice beaten in the world of sport, that a frenchman has beaten us at golf, and that belgians have beaten us at rowing. i suppose that the incidents are important to any people who ever believed in the self-satisfied english legend on this subject. i suppose that there are men who vaguely believe that we could never be beaten by a frenchman, despite the fact that we have often been beaten by frenchmen, and once by a frenchwoman. in the old pictures in punch you will find a recurring piece of satire. the english caricaturists always assumed that a frenchman could not ride to hounds or enjoy english hunting. it did not seem to occur to them that all the people who founded english hunting were frenchmen. all the kings and nobles who originally rode to hounds spoke french. large numbers of those englishmen who still ride to hounds have french names. i suppose that the thing is important to any one who is ignorant of such evident matters as these. i suppose that if a man has ever believed that we english have some sacred and separate right to be athletic, such reverses do appear quite enormous and shocking. they feel as if, while the proper sun was rising in the east, some other and unexpected sun had begun to rise in the north-north-west by north. for the benefit, the moral and intellectual benefit of such people, it may be worth while to point out that the anglo-saxon has in these cases been defeated precisely by those competitors whom he has always regarded as being out of the running; by latins, and by latins of the most easy and unstrenuous type; not only by frenchman, but by belgians. all this, i say, is worth telling to any intelligent person who believes in the haughty theory of anglo-saxon superiority. but, then, no intelligent person does believe in the haughty theory of anglo-saxon superiority. no quite genuine englishman ever did believe in it. and the genuine englishman these defeats will in no respect dismay.
the genuine english patriot will know that the strength of england has never depended upon any of these things; that the glory of england has never had anything to do with them, except in the opinion of a large section of the rich and a loose section of the poor which copies the idleness of the rich. these people will, of course, think too much of our failure, just as they thought too much of our success. the typical jingoes who have admired their countrymen too much for being conquerors will, doubtless, despise their countrymen too much for being conquered. but the englishman with any feeling for england will know that athletic failures do not prove that england is weak, any more than athletic successes proved that england was strong. the truth is that athletics, like all other things, especially modern, are insanely individualistic. the englishmen who win sporting prizes are exceptional among englishmen, for the simple reason that they are exceptional even among men. english athletes represent england just about as much as mr. barnum's freaks represent america. there are so few of such people in the whole world that it is almost a toss-up whether they are found in this or that country.
if any one wants a simple proof of this, it is easy to find. when the great english athletes are not exceptional englishmen they are generally not englishmen at all. nay, they are often representatives of races of which the average tone is specially incompatible with athletics. for instance, the english are supposed to rule the natives of india in virtue of their superior hardiness, superior activity, superior health of body and mind. the hindus are supposed to be our subjects because they are less fond of action, less fond of openness and the open air. in a word, less fond of cricket. and, substantially, this is probably true, that the indians are less fond of cricket. all the same, if you ask among englishmen for the very best cricket-player, you will find that he is an indian. or, to take another case: it is, broadly speaking, true that the jews are, as a race, pacific, intellectual, indifferent to war, like the indians, or, perhaps, contemptuous of war, like the chinese: nevertheless, of the very good prize-fighters, one or two have been jews.
this is one of the strongest instances of the particular kind of evil that arises from our english form of the worship of athletics. it concentrates too much upon the success of individuals. it began, quite naturally and rightly, with wanting england to win. the second stage was that it wanted some englishmen to win. the third stage was (in the ecstasy and agony of some special competition) that it wanted one particular englishman to win. and the fourth stage was that when he had won, it discovered that he was not even an englishman.
this is one of the points, i think, on which something might really be said for lord roberts and his rather vague ideas which vary between rifle clubs and conscription. whatever may be the advantages or disadvantages otherwise of the idea, it is at least an idea of procuring equality and a sort of average in the athletic capacity of the people; it might conceivably act as a corrective to our mere tendency to see ourselves in certain exceptional athletes. as it is, there are millions of englishmen who really think that they are a muscular race because c.b. fry is an englishman. and there are many of them who think vaguely that athletics must belong to england because ranjitsinhji is an indian.
but the real historic strength of england, physical and moral, has never had anything to do with this athletic specialism; it has been rather hindered by it. somebody said that the battle of waterloo was won on eton playing-fields. it was a particularly unfortunate remark, for the english contribution to the victory of waterloo depended very much more than is common in victories upon the steadiness of the rank and file in an almost desperate situation. the battle of waterloo was won by the stubbornness of the common soldier—that is to say, it was won by the man who had never been to eton. it was absurd to say that waterloo was won on eton cricket-fields. but it might have been fairly said that waterloo was won on the village green, where clumsy boys played a very clumsy cricket. in a word, it was the average of the nation that was strong, and athletic glories do not indicate much about the average of a nation. waterloo was not won by good cricket-players. but waterloo was won by bad cricket-players, by a mass of men who had some minimum of athletic instincts and habits.
it is a good sign in a nation when such things are done badly. it shows that all the people are doing them. and it is a bad sign in a nation when such things are done very well, for it shows that only a few experts and eccentrics are doing them, and that the nation is merely looking on. suppose that whenever we heard of walking in england it always meant walking forty-five miles a day without fatigue. we should be perfectly certain that only a few men were walking at all, and that all the other british subjects were being wheeled about in bath-chairs. but if when we hear of walking it means slow walking, painful walking, and frequent fatigue, then we know that the mass of the nation still is walking. we know that england is still literally on its feet.
the difficulty is therefore that the actual raising of the standard of athletics has probably been bad for national athleticism. instead of the tournament being a healthy mêlée into which any ordinary man would rush and take his chance, it has become a fenced and guarded tilting-yard for the collision of particular champions against whom no ordinary man would pit himself or even be permitted to pit himself. if waterloo was won on eton cricket-fields it was because eton cricket was probably much more careless then than it is now. as long as the game was a game, everybody wanted to join in it. when it becomes an art, every one wants to look at it. when it was frivolous it may have won waterloo: when it was serious and efficient it lost magersfontein.
in the waterloo period there was a general rough-and-tumble athleticism among average englishmen. it cannot be re-created by cricket, or by conscription, or by any artificial means. it was a thing of the soul. it came out of laughter, religion, and the spirit of the place. but it was like the modern french duel in this—that it might happen to anybody. if i were a french journalist it might really happen that monsieur clemenceau might challenge me to meet him with pistols. but i do not think that it is at all likely that mr. c. b. fry will ever challenge me to meet him with cricket-bats.
