Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  This letter, for a change, is shorter than most of my letters to you in this series. I hope you will appreciate the change.

  95

  The War of Ideas in Eighteenth-Century Europe

  September 19, 1932

  We shall go back to Europe now and follow its changing destiny. It is on the eve of mighty changes which impressed themselves on the world’s history. To understand these changes we shall have to pry underneath the surface of things, and try to find out what was passing in the minds of men. For action, as we see it, is the result of a complex of thoughts and passions, prejudices and superstitions, hopes and fears; and the action by itself is difficult to understand unless we consider with it the causes that led up to it. But this is no easy matter; and even if I were capable of writing pertinently about these causes and motives which fashion the outstanding events of history, I would not think of making these letters duller and heavier than they already are. Sometimes I fear that in my enthusiasm for a subject, or for a certain point of view, I rush into deeper water than I should. You will have to put up with that, I am afraid. We cannot therefore go deeply into these causes. But it would be exceedingly foolish to ignore them; and indeed if we did so we would miss the fascination and significance of history.

  We have considered the upheavals and disorders of Europe during the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth centuries. In the middle of the seventeenth century there was the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) which ended the terrible Thirty Years’ War; and, the year after, the civil war in England ended and Charles I lost his head. There followed a period of comparative peace. The continent of Europe was thoroughly exhausted. Trade with the colonies in America and elsewhere brought money to Europe, and this gave relief and lessened the tension between different classes.

  In England there came the peaceful revolution which drove away James II and gave the victory to Parliament (1688). The real fight had been won by Parliament in the civil war against Charles I. The peaceful revolution merely confirmed the decision arrived at forty years previously by force of arms.

  The king had thus to take a back seat in England, but on the continent it was otherwise, except in a few small areas, like Switzerland and Holland. Absolute and irresponsible monarchs were still the fashion there, and Louis XIV of France, the Grand Monarque, was the model and the paragon to be followed by others. The seventeenth century is practically the century of Louis XIV on the continent of Europe. Heedless of the doom that awaited their kind, and not even taking a lesson from the fate of Charles I of England, the kings of Europe went on playing the autocrat with all pomp and circumstance and folly. They claimed all the power and all the wealth of the land, and their country was to them almost like a private estate. Over 400 years ago a famous Dutch scholar, Erasmus, wrote:

  Of all the birds the eagle alone has seemed to wise men the type of royalty—not beautiful, not musical, not fit for food, but carnivorous, greedy, hateful to all, the curse of all, and, with its great powers of doing harm, surpassing them in its desire of doing it.

  Kings have almost disappeared today, and such as remain are relics of a past age, with little or no power. We can now ignore them. But other and more dangerous people have taken their place, and the eagle is still a fitting emblem for these latter-day imperialists and kings of iron and oil and silver and gold.

  The monarchies of Europe developed strong centralized States. The old feudal ideas of lord and vassal were dead or dying. The new idea of country as a unit and an entity took its place. France, under two very able ministers, Richelieu and Mazarin, was the leader in this. So nationalism grew, and a measure of patriotism. Religion, which had so far been the most important element in men’s lives, retired into the background and new ideas took its place, as I hope to tell you later in this letter.

  The seventeenth century is even more notable, in that the foundations of modern science were laid in it, and a world market was created. This vast new market naturally upset the old economy of Europe, and much that subsequently happened in Europe and Asia and America can only be understood if this new market is kept in view. Science developed later, and provided means to supply the needs of this world market.

  In the eighteenth century the race for colonies and empire, especially between England and France, resulted in war not only in Europe but in Canada and, as we have seen, in India. After these wars in the middle of the century there was again a period of comparative peace. The surface of Europe appeared to be calm and almost unruffled. The numerous Courts of Europe were full of very polite and cultured and fine ladies and gentlemen. But the calm was on the surface only. Underneath there was turmoil, and the minds of men were troubled and agitated by new thoughts and ideas; and the bodies of men, apart from the charmed circle of the Courts and some of the upper classes, were subjected to greater and greater suffering owing to increasing poverty. The calm in the second half of the eighteenth century in Europe was thus a very deceptive one; it was the prelude to a storm. On the 14th of July, 1789, the storm broke in the capital of the greatest of European monarchies— Paris. It swept away this monarchy and a hundred other out-of-date and moss-grown customs and privileges.

  This storm and subsequent change were long prepared in France, and partly in other European countries also, by new ideas. Right through the Middle Ages religion was the dominant factor in Europe. Even afterwards, during the days of the Reformation, this continued to be so. Every question, whether it was political or economic, was considered from the point of view of religion. Religion was organized and meant the views of the Pope or the high officials of the Church. The organization of society was rather like caste in India. The idea of caste originally was a division according to professions or functions. It was this very idea of social classes according to functions that lay at the basis of the ideas of the Middle Ages on society. Within a class, as within a caste in India, there was equality. As between two or more classes, however, there was inequality. This inequality was at the very basis of the whole social structure, and no one challenged it. Those who suffered under this system were told to “expect their reward in heaven”. In this way religion tried to uphold the unjust social order and tried to distract people’s minds from it by talking of the next world. It also preached what is called the doctrine of trusteeship—that is to say, that the rich man was a kind of trustee for the poor; the landlord held his land “in trust” for his tenant. This was the Church’s way of explaining a very awkward situation. It made little difference to the rich man, and it brought no comfort to the poor. Clever explanations cannot take the place of food in a hungry stomach.

  The bitter religious wars between Catholic and Protestant, the intolerance of both the Catholic and the Calvinist, and the Inquisition, all resulted from this intense religious and communal outlook. Think of it! Many hundreds of thousands of women are said to have been burnt in Europe as witches, mostly by Puritans. New ideas in science were suppressed because these were supposed to be in conflict with the Church’s view of things. It was a static, an unmoving view of life; there was no question of progress.

  We find that these ideas begin to change gradually from the sixteenth century onwards; science appears and the all-embracing hold of religion lessens; politics and economics are considered apart from religion. There is, it is said, a growth of rationalism—that is, of reason as opposed to blind faith—in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The eighteenth century, indeed, is supposed to have established the victory of toleration. This is partly true. But the victory really meant that people had given up attaching as much importance to their religion as they used to. Toleration was very near to indifference. When people are terribly keen about anything they are seldom tolerant about it; it is only when they care little for it that they graciously proclaim that they are tolerant. With the coming of industrialism and the big machine, the indifference to religion grew even more. Science sapped the foundations of the old belief in Europe; the new industry and economics presented new problems w
hich filled people’s minds. So people in Europe gave up (but not entirely) the habit of breaking each other’s heads on questions of religious belief or dogma; instead, they took to breaking heads on economic and social issues.

  It is interesting and instructive to compare this religious period of Europe with India today. India is often called, both in praise and in derision, a religious and spiritual country. It is contrasted with Europe, which is called irreligious and too fond of the good things of life. As a matter of fact this “religious” India is extraordinarily like Europe in the sixteenth century in so far as religion colours the Indian outlook. Of course we cannot carry the comparison too far. But it is very clear that we have the same phenomena here in our over-emphasis on questions of religious faith and dogma, in our mixing up political and economic questions with the interests of religious groups, in our communal quarrels, and similar questions, as existed in medieval Europe. There is no question of a practical and materialistic West and a spiritual and other-worldly East. The difference is between an industrial and highly mechanized West, with all its accompanying good and bad points, and an East which is still largely pre-industrial and agricultural.

  This growth of toleration and rationalism in Europe was a slow process. It was not helped much at first by books, as people were afraid to criticize Christianity publicly. To do so meant imprisonment or some other punishment. A German philosopher was banished from Prussia because he had praised Confucius too much. This was interpreted as a slight on Christianity. In the eighteenth century, however, as these new ideas became clearer and more general, books came out dealing with these subjects. The most famous writer of the time on rationalistic and other subjects was Voltaire, a Frenchman, who was imprisoned and banished, and who ultimately lived at Ferney near Geneva. When in prison he was not allowed paper or ink. So he wrote verses with pieces of lead between the lines of a book. He became a celebrity when quite young. Indeed, he was only ten when he attracted attention by his unusual ability. Voltaire hated injustice and bigotry and he waged war against them. His famous cry was Ecrasez I’infâme. He lived to a great old age (1694–1778) and wrote an enormous number of books. Because he criticized Christianity he was fiercely hated by orthodox Christians. In one of his books he says that “a man who accepts his religion without examining it is like an ox which allows itself to be harnessed”. Voltaire’s writings had great influence in making people incline towards rationalism and the new ideas. His old house at Ferney is still a place of pilgrimage for many.

  Another great writer, a contemporary of Voltaire but younger than him, was Jean Jacques Rousseau. He was born in Geneva, and Geneva is very proud of him. Do you remember his statue there? Rousseau’s writings on religion and politics raised quite an outcry. Nonetheless, his novel and rather daring social and political theories set the minds of many afire with new ideas and new resolves. His political theories are out of date now, but they played an important part in preparing the people of France for the great revolution. Rousseau did not preach revolution, probably he did not even expect one. But his books and ideas certainly sowed the seed in men’s minds which blossomed out in the revolution.

  His best known book is the “Social Contract”—Du Contrat Social— and this begins with a famous sentence (I quote from memory): “Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains.”

  Rousseau was also a great educationist, and many of the new methods of teaching he suggested are now used in schools.

  Besides Voltaire and Rousseau there were many other notable thinkers and writers in France in the eighteenth century. I shall only mention one other name—Montesquieu, who wrote, besides other books, the Esprit des Lois. An Encyclopaedia also came out in Paris about this time, and this was full of articles by Diderot and other able writers on political and social subjects. Indeed, France seemed to be full of philosophers and thinkers, and, what is more, they were widely read and they succeeded in making large numbers of ordinary people think their thoughts and discuss their theories. Thus there grew up in France a strong body of opinion opposed to religious intolerance and political and social privilege. A vague desire for liberty possessed the people. And yet, curiously, neither the philosophers nor the people wanted to get rid of the king. The idea of a republic was not a common one then, and people still hoped that they might have an ideal prince, something like Plato’s philosopher king, who would remove their burdens and give them justice and a measure of liberty. At any rate this is what the philosophers write. One is inclined to doubt how far the suffering masses loved the king.

  In England there was no such development of political thought as in France. It is said that the Englishman is not a political animal, whilst the Frenchman is. Apart from this the English revolution of 1688 had relieved the tension somewhat. There was, however, plenty of privilege still enjoyed by certain classes. New economic developments, about which I shall tell you something in another letter soon, and trade and entanglements in America and India, kept the English mind busy. And when social tension became great, a temporary compromise averted the danger of a break. In France there was no room for such compromise, and hence the upset.

  It is interesting to note, however, that the modern novel developed in England about the middle of the eighteenth century. Gulliver’s Travels and Robinson Crusoe both appeared, as I have already told you, early in the eighteenth century. They were followed by real novels. A new reading public comes into evidence in England at this time.

  It was in the eighteenth century also that the Englishman Gibbon wrote his famous Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I have, already referred to him and his book in a previous letter of mine when I dealt with the Roman Empire.

  96

  Europe on the Eve of Great Changes

  September 24, 1932

  We have tried to have a little peep into the minds of the men and women of the eighteenth century in Europe, especially in France. It has been just a glimpse revealing to us some new ideas growing and battling with the old. Having been behind the scenes, we shall now have a look at the actors on the public stage of Europe.

  In France old Louis XIV finally succeeded in dying in 1716. He had outlived several generations, and he was succeeded by his great-grandson, who became Louis XV. There was another long reign of fifty-nine years. Thus two successive kings of France, Louis XIV and XV, reigned for a total period of 131 years! Surely this must be a world record. The two Manchu emperors in China, Kang Hi and Chien Lung, each reigned for over sixty years, but they did not follow each other, and there was a third reign in between.

  Apart from its extraordinary length, the reign of Louis XV was chiefly remarkable for its disgusting corruption and intrigue. The resources of the kingdom were used for the pleasures of the king. There was extravagance at Court based on graft. The men and women at Court who happened to please the king got free gifts of land and sinecure offices, which meant income without work. And the burden of all this fell more and more on the masses. Autocracy and incompetence and corruption went hand in hand, merrily forward. Is it surprising that before the century was over, they came to the end of their path and stepped into the abyss? What does surprise us is that the path was such a long one and the fall came so late. Louis XV escaped the people’s judgment and vengeance; it was his successor in 1774, Louis XVI, who had to face this.

  In spite of his incompetence and depravity, Louis XV had no doubts about his absolute authority in the State. He was everything, and no one could challenge his right to do anything he chose. Listen to what he said, addressing an assembly in Paris in 1766:

  C’est en ma personne seul que reside l’autorité souveraine . . . C’est à moi seul qu’appartient le pouvoir législatif sans dépendance et sans partage. L’ordre public tout entier émane de moi; j’en suis le guardien suprême. Mon peuple n’est qu’un avec moi; les droits et les intérêts de la nation, dont on ose faire un corps séparé du monarque, sont nécessairement unis avec les miens et ne reposent qu’entre mes mains.

  S
uch was the ruler of France for the greater part of the eighteenth century. He seemed to dominate Europe for a while, but then he came into conflict with the ambitions of other kings and peoples, and had to acknowledge defeat. Some of the old rivals of France no longer played a dominant part on the European stage, but others arose to take their place and challenge the French power. Proud Spain had fallen back both in Europe and elsewhere after her brief day of imperial glory. But she still held large colonies in America and the Philippine Islands. The Hapsburgs of Austria, who had so long monopolized the headship of the Empire and, through this, the leadership of Europe, were also no longer so prominent as they used to be. Austria was not the leading State of the Empire now; another, Prussia, had risen and become equally important. There were wars about the Austrian succession to the crown, and for a long period a woman, Maria Theresa, occupied it.

  The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, you will remember, had made Prussia one of the important Powers of Europe. The House of Hohenzollern ruled there and challenged the supremacy of the other German dynasty—the House of Hapsburg in Austria. For forty-six years (1740–86) Prussia was ruled by Frederick, who has been called, because of his military success, the Great. He was an absolute monarch, like the others in Europe, but he put on the pose of a philosopher and tried to be friends with Voltaire. He built up a strong army and was a successful general. He called himself a rationalist and is reported to have said that “everyone should be allowed to get to heaven in his own way”.

  From the seventeenth century onwards French culture was dominant in Europe. In the middle years of the eighteenth century this became even more marked, and Voltaire had a tremendous European reputation. Indeed, some people even call this century “the century of Voltaire”. French literature was read in all the Courts of Europe, even in backward St. Petersburg, and cultured and educated people preferred writing and speaking in French. Thus Frederick the Great of Prussia almost always wrote and spoke in French. He even tried writing French poetry, which he wanted Voltaire to correct and polish up for him.