'High Minds' Review: The Victorian Pursuit of Perfection
By: WSJ
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Victorians are always with us. Those stalwart Britons built to last, and much that is ours was once theirs, not least "social justice," though that is not their fault. They were snobs and meritocrats, humanitarians and exploiters, saints and scientists, and their inner lives were so vigorous and complex that they were frequently all of these at once. Above all, they believed in God, or thereabouts. Beneath all, they were hypocrites, torn between saving souls and getting rich. Somewhere in between, they made Britain a middle-class commercial civilization and laid the foundations of mass democracy; mass education; rights for workers, women and children; and a welfare state.
Simon Heffer's "High Minds" is a deep, droll and lucid exploration of Britain's intellectual and political life from 1837, when the young Queen Victoria ascended the throne of a chaotic, semifeudal society, to 1880, by which time Victoria was a widow and the Empress of India, and the British, apart from those at the very top and bottom of society, had bootstrapped themselves into sobriety and "respectability." Mr. Heffer is a journalist of near-Victorian fecundity, but he also holds a doctorate in history. Another volume, covering the late Victorian and Edwardian years, "The Age of Decadence," has already appeared. And as that title suggests, Mr. Heffer prefers moral seriousness and the "social gospel" to Oscar Wilde and Edwardian frivolity. Opinion may differ over whether it was all downhill from 1880, but there certainly had been a hard climb to the High Victorian peaks. Contemporary historians tend to dwell on the Victorians' imperial glory, but when they were not busy conscripting other people into the march of civilization, they were remaking their own society no less energetically.
Mr. Heffer is a sure guide to their “pursuit of perfection,” and to the astounding distance they covered. In the “hungry ’40s,” he writes, Britain contained “seething discontents and vast inequalities.” The Corn Laws, tariffs on imported grain, fixed the price of bread to favor the landholding aristocracy rather than the growing urban population. Conditions were appalling: children working naked in the mines, unregulated factories imposing 20-hour days, endemic prostitution and drunkenness in the slums. The workhouse, rather than being a safety net, was an exemplary punishment. The Chartists, a radical movement uniting middle-class reformers with the artisanal upper crust of the workers, threatened French-style revolution.
Britain stabilized and prospered through a mix of what we today would call free-market economics and the middle-class virtue of evangelical Christianity, topped with a dash of feudal noblesse oblige. The Reform Act of 1832 weakened the aristocracy’s monopoly on political power, but gave the vote to only one in every six working men. The “crucial step” in the middle-class advance, Mr. Heffer writes, was the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. Opening the ports to foreign grain pacified the workers by lowering the price of bread. It hobbled the aristocracy by cutting the value of land, their biggest asset. And it geared economic policy to the commercial classes. A “long-term realignment” in politics followed. Repeal was secured by a Tory prime minister, Robert Peel, in alliance with free-market Whigs. It cost Peel his job but, over the next two decades, the Whigs turned into the Liberals, the party of middle-class reform. The Tories, the party of the landed interest, became the Conservatives, the party of business and, after Benjamin Disraeli had secured the Second Reform Act of 1867, working-class democracy.
The soul of the nation was at stake along with its peace and pocketbooks. Mr. Heffer’s emblem is the headmaster Thomas Arnold; he reminds us that Arnold was not the pious hypocrite caricatured by Lytton Strachey in “Eminent Victorians” (1918). A scholarship boy who made it to Oxford, and a Whiggish Christian, Arnold turned Britain’s boarding schools from “dens of buggery and bullying” into seminaries of “muscular Christianity” and factories of public service. By reshaping the ethics of the governing classes, and “indirectly staffing an empire,” Arnold would have “an incalculable influence on world history.” Even Virginia Woolf never claimed that for Bloomsbury.
We cannot understand what Gertrude Himmelfarb called “the Victorian angst” if we fail to understand its theological niceties. Mr. Heffer depicts the mid-19th century as a sweet spot between Christian inheritances and secular influences. Britain’s institutions were cautiously Protestant, but evangelicalism reached into the upper classes: the first limits on child labor were the work of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, the Earl of Shaftesbury. Church attendance declined through the long march of urbanization and capitalism, but Britain also incubated the Catholicizing revival of the Oxford Movement. If the reformers suffered from hearing what Thomas Arnold’s son Matthew called the “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar” of faith, they retained enough of its imprint to be evangelical about education and moral uplift.
One of “the foremost Victorian hypocrisies—or accommodations,” Mr. Heffer writes, was paying tribute to the social uses of religion, while society advanced rapidly without it, and “often with the explicit approval of Christian intellectuals.” Their industrial architecture looked to the Middle Ages—George Gilbert Scott’s Midland Grand Hotel, the Mughal Gothic medley of Mumbai’s Victoria (now Chhatrapati Shivaji) Terminus—even as their science detonated the controversies of Darwinian evolution. Throughout, they never stopped building schools, libraries, parks, sewers, hospitals and habitable housing, often through private philanthropy. Rarely has angst been put to such good use.
Mr. Heffer efficiently sketches the prophets and titans of the Victorian intellectual-industrial complex, and expertly draws out the mutations of the Christian imperative into social ethics: Thomas Carlyle, the Romantic prophet of modern doom; John Stuart Mill, the neurotic liberal optimist; Thomas Henry Huxley, the evangelist of evolution; John Ruskin, the inspiring and often bonkers art critic who detected in grubby urchins “the making of gentlemen and gentlewomen—not the making of dog-stealers and gin-drinkers, such as their parents were.”
Meanwhile the political system evolved begrudgingly, and by the traditionally devious paths. Mr. Heffer places Gladstone and Disraeli at the “poles” of Victorian mind in politics. He prefers Gladstone, a “man of principle, even if he had to engage in occasional contortions to try to remain principled,” to Disraeli, “frivolous, opportunistic, unscrupulous and consumed by personal ambition.” Still, it would take a heart of stone, and the Victorians mass-produced those as well as everything else, not to be amused by Disraeli’s blocking Gladstone’s proposals for a second Reform Act and then, a year later, passing a near-identical Conservative bill.
Mr. Heffer identifies “the pursuit of perfection” as the Victorian ideal, but also exposes the Victorian reality. The reformers tempered the stricken conscience with the fear that overhasty legislation would bring on socialism. The upper class and much of the middle classes slow-marched reform, filling their pockets as they went. The rights of children and women remained limited, the lot of the workers hard, the lot of the poorest harder still. It would take one world war to complete the expansion of the franchise, and another to finally break the feudal hangover. Still, the Victorians made Britain a more decent and democratic place.
Modern Britain has regressed to the “two nations” that early Victorian novelists agonized over, and its dog-stealers and gin-drinkers might benefit from a revival of the public spirit among those who can afford it most. As Winston Churchill, the last of the great Victorians, would have said, they always did the right thing, once they had exhausted the other possibilities.
—Mr. Green’s most recent book, “The Religious Revolution: The Birth of Modern Spirituality, 1848-1898,” has just been published.
Tags
Who is online
436 visitors
They helped to civilize the world and it's time that the world gave credit where credit is due.
The Book is:
High Minds: The Victorians and the Birth of Modern Britain
Just a comment or two about a few of the personages mentioned in the article. Author and art critic John Ruskin is referred to, and I studied his works, having majored in English Literature at university. He was particularly enamoured with the works of J.M.W.Turner, who happens to be my favourite artist, and who painted my favourite painting, The Fighting Temeraire, while at the same time he really put down John Constable whose paintings were relatively photographic. When I was in London I went to both the Tate and National galleries to view many of the works of both of them. Both those artists were in a sort of competition for fame in those days, but IMO the works of J.M.W.Turner took the cake. The present British public feels the same, because a poll was taken to determine what their favourite painting was, and it was The Fighting Temeraire.
The article also speaks of Benjamin D'Israeli and William Gladstone, contemporary leaders of their respective Conservative and Liberal political parties, who were known to take "shots" at each other. One time Gladstone is reputed to have gone too far and made a nasty comment about D'Israeli's birth religion (he had to convert to Christianity in order to serve as Prime Minister), and D'Israeli is reputed to have replied something like this - "While your ancestors were painting themselves blue and hiding in caves, mine were priests in the Temple of David."
Teaching the third world about Literature and education and basic hygiene can never be overestimated.
How white of you.
How woke of you.
Our responsibility as human beings is to evolve from our questionable or even evil behavior, not to glorify it. You have been praising the 1950's as the greatest period in American history (somehow coincidentally just prior to the peak of the civil rights era) , and now you are going even farther back to praise your ideological ancestors, the imperialists, classists, and robber barons of Britains Victorian era in the 19th century. Can praise of Nero and Caligula be far behind?
The British Empire deserves credit for the positive things it contributed to the world over time. It was the Britain of this time that led the effort to rid the world they had influence over of slavery. Many nations are part of the commonwealth of nations voluntarily today. Too bad that they couldn’t have had more influence over China during that time.
Slavery, domination, and inhuman treatment of the so-called third world by the Brits cannot be underestimated they were very good at it.
I'm more worried about those who write short stories about killing settlers.
You mean the stories about the so called settlers killing and slaughtering Indians and the Indian fighting back, those stories. Wow, you should be worried.
Vic,
As a person who is both English and Indian, I can tell you, that what the English did was for their empire, that they despised Americans as being a barbaric civilization, and they had little care for the indigenous people of the countries they ruled. And while they did give us some cultural things, they also did a lot of harm.
And I don't know of anyone who writes books about glorifying the death of settlers. In fact, it looks pretty much like the settlers won, and the problem is that history has been written by the victors and so indigenous people are marginalized.
Perrie,
Then I have the following questions:
Did the colonizers bring civility? Or is Colonization always wrong?
Vic, why did a "white man's burden" mentality develop in Britain and then in the United States ?
The colonists were invariably white and the conquered were invariably non white. Why didnt Britain try to colonize Scandanavia ?
Never mind the dogma. I'm only exploring the questions I asked Perrie.
Let us use Kenya as an example.
Did the Native Americans of North America have "civilizations" prior to the arrival of the English? Of course they did. They just werent civilizations that impress you.
They brought their culture so what you are asking is if their culture is better than the existing culture. I think that each culture has its value.
I would also point to the Know-Nothings, who felt that their anglo way of life was way superior to Italians or Irish immigrants.
And yes I do feel that colonization is always wrong if it usurps the people who have been living there. Of course, for the most part, it is looked down upon by today's standards, and there is a reason for that.
Perhaps their higher standard of living lead them to conclude that they should bring "civilization' to those in much less developed areas of the world.
The Irish, Scotts and Welch self identify as white, both before and after being conquered by England.
They fought a number of European powers throughout there history. There was a period of about 150 years where Britain fought against Scandinavian countries among others in the v Great Norther War, The War of the Austrian Succession, the Seven Years War, the Gunboat War, and the War of the Sixth Coalition.
Yes, but their policies of open borders didn't serve them well.
www.businesstoday.in /latest/economy-politics/story/this-economist-says-britain-took-away-usd-45-trillion-from-india-in-173-years-111689-2018-11-19
How much money did Britain take away from India? About $45 trillion in 173 years, says top economist
Britain ruled India for about 200 years, a period that was marred with extreme poverty and famine. India's wealth depleted in these two centuries. Renowned economist Utsa Patnaik, who has done a research on the fiscal relations between Colonial India and Britain, has tried to answer a question many Indians are likely to be interested to know -- how much money did Britishers take away from India? Patnaik, in her essay published in Columbia University Press recently, said Britain drained out over $45 trillion from India, which to date has hampered the country's ability to come out of poverty.
Patnaik said the scars of colonisation remain despite Britain leaving India over 70 years ago. "Between 1765 and 1938, the drain amounted to 9.2 trillion pounds ($45 trillion), taking India's export surplus earnings as the measure, and compounding it at a 5 per cent rate of interest," Patnaik said during an interview with Mint.
She added Indians were never given due credit for their precious resources like gold and forex earnings, which all went to feed the people of the British country.
As per Utsa's research, the country's per capita income was almost steady during the period from 1900 to 1945-46. In 1900-02, India's per capita income was Rs 196.1, while it was just Rs 201.9 in 1945-46, a year before India got its independence. During this period, the per capita income rose to maximum Rs 223.8 in 1930-32. All this happened when "India registered the second largest export surplus earnings in the world for three decades before 1929," she told the daily.
As per Utsa, every year the Britishers siphoned off resources equivalent to 26-36 per cent of the Central government's budget. This would have made a huge difference in India's journey towards being a 'developed' nation. The economist believes if these international earnings had remained in India, the country would have been much ahead in terms of proper healthcare and social welfare indicators.
Putting forward some shocking figures, Patnaik said while people of India died due to malnutrition and several other diseases just like "flies", the Britishers kept taking away hard-earned money of poor Indians. "...Indian expectation of life at birth was just 22 years in 1911," said Utsa.
She said Britain exported foodgrains and imposed high taxes, which spread famine in India and reduced its purchasing power. As per the economist, per capita annual consumption of food, which was 200 kg in 1900, went down to 137kg during World War II in 1946. She said India's position at the time of independence was dismal on all social factors.
Before Utsa, Congress leader and writer Shashi Tharoor, in his book Inglorious Empire, had also called British prime minister Winston Churchill, who is considered as a great wartime leader and protector of freedom of speech, one of "the worst genocidal dictators". "This is a man the British would have us hail as an apostle of freedom and democracy when he has as much blood on his hands as some of the worst genocidal dictators of the 20th century," he said during an interview broadcast with ABC.
That's what happens when you let in the trash from the shithole countries in Europe.
They won't make that mistake again.
Indeed, it's amazing that such a small, island country was able to rule so much of the world while having to protect itself from European powers.
Lets take Kenya.
The Brits put down the dreaded Mau Mau and then withdrew. That began the "happy times" for Kenya.
Who was the beneficiary?
The Brits also destroyed the indigenous population of Australia. Pointing to one good does not remove the bad.
The Mau Mau would never have formed if the British bothered to even play mildly fair throughout their domination of Kenya. Someone needs to read some history that does not wallow in 'we are civilized and they are savages and as such we have more rights'.
As opposed to your over simplified "white man bad" version?
I don't have a version, history is generally simplified by the victors into a 'whitewashed' version of it.
‘Whitewashed’, good one Hallux.
It is afterall today's world and white is the new black on certain partisan palettes.
It's a world turned upside down and down upside.
No takers on Kenya?
What did Rome do to make the ancient world safer?
Safer? For who? The Romans were brutal to the people they conquered. Do you think that being a slave or dying in the Coliseum is something they wanted?
Now I am not saying that Rome didn't have an amazing society, but it was also brutal. Things are not 100% good or bad. Life is far more complex.
The Mau Mau uprising was against British colonial rule. In the end, it helped Kenya regain independence from Britain.
On of the best places to visit and better places to live in Africa.
I didn't mean to stump everyone.
Have a good day.
LOL. What makes you think you can dictate people's responses? No one is stumped by your comments, three people have responded to them.
Stumped? More flabbergasted you don't know shit!
Egypt, Israel, Greece, Corinth and other nations conquered by Rome were established civilizations centuries before Rome defeated them. Superior military might does not equal civilization.
I don't believe that the nation of Israel or Greece existed at that time.
Look it up...
I don't need to JBB, I was trying to be nice about your historical confusion.
You were not trying to be nice, you were trying to be a wag.
Wild Ass Guess?
Wag:
Try another dictionary or just think of O.W.
Other World?
You’ve got me Hallux, you’ve stumped the chump.
Oscar Wilde
Oh good one, another Celtic poet.
Last words: “This wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. Either it goes or I do.”
I grew up between here and London in the 60s and 70s and you have no idea how often I was put down for being an uncivilized American. That is not ancient history.
And finally, if the English were so wonderful and fair, why did we fight a war of Independence from them? The fact is that the infusion of culture came at a high price to both the indigenous people as well as the newcomers.
Nuuk, Greenland?
Good one!
As far as the Brits being responsible for much of the modern world I suggest reading 'How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It' by Arthur Herman.
As far as Western/British civilization being the bee's knees I suggest reading 'The Dawn of Everything - A new History oh Humanity' by David Graeber & David Wengrow.
It's never too late to put preconceptions through a double wash/rinse cycle, it's liberating.
Let other poets raise a fracas
"Bout vines, an' wines, an' drucken Bacchus,
An' crabbit names an'stories wrack us,
An' grate our lug:
I sing the juice Scotch bear can mak us,
In glass or jug.
With many more stanzas by Rabbie Burns and read by Stephen Duffy
"Ha! whaur ye gaun, ye crowlin ferlie?
Your impudence protects you sairly;
I canna say but ye strunt rarely,
Owre gauze and lace;
Tho', faith! I fear ye dine but sparely
On sic a place.
Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,
Detested, shunn'd by saunt an' sinner,
How daur ye set your fit upon her-
Sae fine a lady?
Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner
On some poor body ..."
...
It's incredibly difficult to generalize about a country over the course of generations as a counterpoint almost always exists. And of course, when someone offers praise, the rebuttal seems to be "it's not perfect because A,B or C happened". As if perfection was an obtainable standard or anyone claims perfection.
In general, I think Churchill summed up the Victorians pretty well " they always did the right thing, once they had exhausted the other possibilities." They gradually democratized at home while avoiding the bloody revolutions and excesses that characterized so much of the early modern world. They exported the ideas and values that are now used to attack them 150 years later as evil because, as I said, they weren't perfect. They left the world in a better path than it was on, and that's not too bad a legacy.
One of the more interesting facts about Imperial England is they oversaw a global empire with less centralized staff than most colleges now employ DEI administrators. A literal handful.
The British "administered" from behind bigger guns.
Exactly, they made STEM work for them. Great engineering skills to match their exploration and sailing skills.