Now the peculiarity of Godwin’s position as a doctrinaire of Progress lies in the fact that he entertained the same pessimistic view of some important sides of civilisation as Rousseau, and at the same time adopted the theories of Rousseau’s opponents, especially Helvetius.  His survey of human conditions seems to lead inevitably to pessimism; then he turns round and proclaims the doctrine of perfectibility.

The explanation of this argument was the psychological theory of Helvetius.  He taught, as we saw, and Godwin developed the view in his own way, that the natures and characters of men are moulded entirely by their environment—­not physical, but intellectual and moral environment, and therefore can be indefinitely modified.  A man is born into the world without innate tendencies.  His conduct depends on his opinions.  Alter men’s opinions and they will act differently.  Make their opinions conformable to justice and benevolence, and you will have a just and benevolent society.  Virtue, as Socrates taught, is simply a question of knowledge.  The situation, therefore, is not hopeless.  For it is not due to the radical nature of man; it is caused by ignorance and prejudice, by governments and institutions, by kings and priests.  Transform the ideas of men, and society will be transformed.  The French philosopher considered that a reformed system of educating children would be one of the most powerful means for promoting progress and bringing about the reign of reason; and Condorcet worked out a scheme of universal state education.  This was entirely opposed to Godwin’s principles.  State schools would only be another instrument of power in the hands of a government, worse even than a state Church.  They would strengthen the poisonous influence of kings and statesmen, and establish instead of abolishing prejudices.  He seems to have relied entirely on the private efforts of enlightened thinkers to effect a gradual conversion of public opinion.

In his study of the perfectibility of man and the prospect of a future reign of general justice and benevolence, Godwin was even more visionary than Condorcet, as in his political views he was more radical than the Revolutionists.  Condorcet had at least sought to connect his picture of the future with a reasoned survey of the past, and to find a chain of connection, but the perfectibility of Godwin hung in the air, supported only by an abstract theory of the nature of man.

It can hardly be said that he contributed anything to the theoretical problem of civilisation.  His significance is that he proclaimed in England at an opportune moment, and in a more impressive and startling way than a sober apostle like Priestley, the creed of progress taught by French philosophers, though considerably modified by his own anarchical opinions.

5.