may be a caricature rather than a faithful picture
of us. Now it is to be noticed that those sharp
observers, the French,—who have a double
turn for sharp observation, for they have both the
quick perception of the Celt and the Latin’s
gift for coming plump upon the fact,—it
is to be noticed, I say, that the French put a curious
distinction in their popular, depreciating, we will
hope inadequate, way of hitting off us and the Germans.
While they talk of the ‘betise allemande,’
they talk of the ‘gaucherie anglaise;’
while they talk of the ‘Allemand balourd,’
they talk of the ‘Anglais empetre;’ while
they call the German ‘niais,’ they call
the Englishman ‘melancolique.’ The
difference between the epithets balourd and empetre
exactly gives the difference in character I wish to
seize; balourd means heavy and dull, empetre means
hampered and embarrassed. This points to a certain
mixture and strife of elements in the Englishman;
to the clashing of a Celtic quickness of perception
with a Germanic instinct for going steadily along
close to the ground. The Celt, as we have seen,
has not at all, in spite of his quick perception,
the Latin talent for dealing with the fact, dexterously
managing it and making himself master of it; Latin
or Latinised people have felt contempt for him on
this account, have treated him as a poor creature,
just as the German, who arrives at fact in a different
way from the Latins, but who arrives at it, has treated
him. The couplet of Chrestien of Troyes about
the Welsh:-
. . . Gallois sont tous, par nature, Plus fous
que betes en pasture —
is well known, and expresses the genuine verdict of
the Latin mind on the Celts. But the perceptive
instinct of the Celt feels and anticipates, though
he has that in him which cuts him off from command
of the world of fact; he sees what is wanting to him
well enough; his mere eye is not less sharp, nay,
it is sharper, than the Latin’s. He is
a quick genius, checkmated for want of strenuousness
or else patience. The German has not the Latin’s
sharp precise glance on the world of fact, and dexterous
behaviour in it; he fumbles with it much and long,
but his honesty and patience give him the rule of
it in the long run,—a surer rule, some of
us think, than the Latin gets; still, his behaviour
in it is not quick and dexterous. The Englishman,
in so far as he is German,—and he is mainly
German,—proceeds in the steady-going German
fashion; if he were all German he would proceed thus
for ever without self-consciousness or embarrassment;
but, in so far as he is Celtic, he has snatches of
quick instinct which often make him feel he is fumbling,
show him visions of an easier, more dexterous behaviour,
disconcert him and fill him with misgiving. No
people, therefore, are so shy, so self-conscious,
so embarrassed as the English, because two natures
are mixed in them, and natures which pull them such
different ways. The Germanic part, indeed, triumphs
in us, we are a Germanic people; but not so wholly