6

that the legend associated him with Bern' because Theodoric may have occasionally resided at Verona. But if he was to be called after his residence, surely he should have been known as Dietrich of Raben, for his permanent residence was in the palace of Ravenna. No, it was the great defeat which he inflicted at Verona upon Odovacar that associated him for ever with that city in the imagination of the Burgundians, who were allies of Odovacar and had marched into Italy to his aid. Many instances might be adduced to illustrate the remark of a French writer, 'la défaite, c'est la Muse épique par excellence.' That the Iliad, which was, we may be sure, the highest achievement of the Trojan epic, should be inspired by defeat, is only what we might expect. And, if we regard the discomfiture of the Achæans in battle as a real episode of the war, there is some reason for thinking that it may have been due to such a quarrel among the kings as Homer describes. For Mr Leaf has shown that the raid of Achilles on the southern Troad, which led up to the quarrel, was an enterprise which would almost inevitably have been undertaken by the assailants of Troy.

Mr Leaf has wisely refrained from assuming in these volumes the validity of his own views, expressed elsewhere, as to the literary history of the Iliad. He has not compromised his arguments by any debatable theory, so that they should appeal with equal force to those who believe in the unity of the poem and those who hold that it was a compilation or a growth. His results indeed will inevitably influence Homeric controversy in the future. In the meantime he has definitely restored the Trojan War to history, and we can now ask questions which some years ago most critics would have dismissed as unpardonably naïve.

J. B. BURY.

Art. 2.-EAST AND WEST.

'East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.'

THE want of sympathy at times displayed by Europeans towards Easterns constitutes a fertile theme for the dissertations of a certain school of English politicians, whose intentions are generally excellent, whose acquaintance with Eastern affairs is usually superficial, who often fail to recognise both the true nature and the width of the gulf which separates the East from the West, and who, therefore, are prone to advocate changes which, although occasionally sound in principle, are apt to be disappointing inasmuch as they rarely yield the results anticipated from their adoption. None the less, there is some foundation for this charge of want of sympathy. I could mention many instances within my own experience where an inconsiderate or thoughtless act, or the use of harsh and tactless language, on the part of individual Englishmen, has done an amount of harm altogether incommensurate with its real importance, and has to a limited extent tended to nullify the laborious efforts of statesmen to harmonise Eastern and Western interests and affinities. No thinking man, and certainly no experienced politician, will be inclined to underrate the importance of that touch of nature which makes the whole world kin, and on which moralists from Aristotle * downwards, and poets at least from the days of Euripides † to those of Shakespeare, have never ceased to dwell. Even, however, where the desire to sympathise exists to the fullest extent, the effective exercise of sympathy must always be difficult unless it be preceded and accompanied by complete and mutual comprehension.

The East and the West unfortunately often fail to understand each other. It is very natural that they should do so. Indeed, the general impression left on my mind after thirty-five years' experience of Eastern affairs, is not one of despondency because Easterns and Westerns understand each other so little, but rather one of surprise and congratulation that the misunderstandings are not more complete and profound than is actually the case. t'Orestes,' 805, 806.

* Ethics,' IX, 11, 2.

Consider conditions of climate and natural surroundings. Look at all. the most potent influences which bind communities of men together, such as language, religion, identity of race, and social customs. Compare Eastern and Western processes of ratiocination. In every field of thought or action it will be found that the utmost dissimilarity prevails. Amongst the various causes which tend to prevent concord, colour antipathy is perhaps the most important. In a short work which I published in 1910, entitled Ancient and Modern Imperialism,' I adduced evidence tending to prove that this antipathy existed to a relatively less extent than at present in the ancient world; and I hazarded the conjecture, which found favour in the eyes of others of greater erudition than myself, that its growth had been stimulated by the world discoveries of the 15th and 16th centuries and the consequent enslavement of some of the coloured races. I cannot think, if the feeling against the inter-marriage of white and coloured races had been so strong in England three or four centuries ago as it is now, that Shakespeare would have placed Desdemona and Othello on the stage. Yet inter-marriage and all the close social relations which would almost necessarily accompany it can alone serve to remove or seriously mitigate colour antipathy. Amongst the Teutonic races, and perhaps especially amongst Anglo-Saxons, this cause of disunion exists in a very high degree, nor does it appear likely that it will diminish. It is wholly uninfluenced by political changes or considerations. Amongst the Latin races, especially the Spaniards and Portuguese, on the other hand, there is a tendency to eliminate this cause of difference. Intermarriage is frequent. It is probable that in another generation or two the greater part of the population of South America will be half-castes.

That very close and competent political observer, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, thus differentiated Oriental and European political institutions and social customs: *

*On the methods of observation and reasoning in politics,' 1852.

Every European who has lived for long in the East will, I think, bear me out when I say that in the most trivial acts of life the Eastern somehow or other manages always to do and to say exactly the opposite to what would be done or said by the Western. I was one day looking out of the window of the Viceroy's house at Barrackpore and noticed that a native policeman was walking up and down the terrace. His attention was attracted by a piece of paper which fluttered to his feet. He stopped and eyed it intently. I conceive that under similar circumstances a policeman of any Western nation, even if he had been barefooted and his toes had not, from the constant use of boots, lost their prehensile qualities, would, had he wished to possess himself of that bit of paper, have stooped down to pick it up. The Bengali policeman did nothing of the kind. He kicked off the wooden shoe from his right foot, seized the bit of paper between his two toes, brought up his foot to the level of the knee, and, without stooping, conveyed the paper from his toes to his fingers behind his back. A friend of mine, who was a very acute observer of Eastern ways, told me that on one occasion, in order to test the intelligence of an Egyptian, he asked him to indicate his left ear. The most uneducated member of an European nation, supposing he understood the difference between right and left, would certainly have seized the lobe of his left ear with his left hand. The Egyptian, however, passed his right hand over the top of his

head and, with that hand, took hold of the top of his left ear.

Why, in the East, that is to say, in that portion of the real East which is as yet only slightly tainted by connexion with Europe, should the men wear flowing robes and the women trousers? Why should a Western, if he folds up a wet umbrella, always put it against the wall or in a rack with the point downwards, whereas the Eastern, with much greater reason, will always put it point upwards against the wall with the handle on the floor? Why should a Western fasten his dress with buttons and an Eastern with strings? Is it not singular that an Egyptian signalman should think that the best way of being warned when a train was about to pass was to go to sleep with his head on the rail? Yet it has happened that an Egyptian signalman has adopted this course, with the inevitable result that his head was cut off. Why does an Eastern mount his horse on the off side, whereas a European mounts on the near side? Is there any particular reason why a Christian should be summoned to prayer by the sound of a bell and a Moslem by the call of a man's voice? Again, why should an Eastern always sit cross-legged on a divan or on the floor, whereas a Western always sits on a chair? Why should a drover in the Highlands follow his flock of sheep and a herdsman in the Deccan walk in front of them? Why should a European, when he wishes to write, put the paper on which he is writing on the table before him, whereas an Eastern rather prefers to hold the paper in one hand and to write with the other? Why should a European sign his name and an Eastern prefer to use a seal? Why should the Western write from left to right and the Eastern from right to left? Why should one smoke a long pipe and the other a short one? Why should a European, if he wishes to wash his hands, always pour water into a basin first and then wash them, whereas an Oriental will prefer to have the water poured over his hands? Is it not strange that

* This, as also one or two others of the anecdotes and reflections contained in this article, were given, in somewhat different language, in my 'Modern Egypt,' but I trust that those who did me the honour of reading that work will consider that they will bear repetition.