1888.] on Antagonism. 295 



suffering, and in tlio mid gusli of our i^leasure something bitter 

 surges up. 



" We look before and after, and pine for what is not, 

 Our sincerest laughter with some pain is fraught, 

 Our sweetest songs are those which tell of saddest thought." 



The question may possibly occur to you, have we more or less 

 antagonism now than in former times ? We certainly have more 

 comjDlexity, more differentiation, in our mental characteristics, and 

 probably in our physical, so far as the structure of the brain is con- 

 cerned ; but is there less antagonism? With greater complexity 

 come increased wants, more continuous cares. Higher cerebral 

 development is accompanied with greater nervous irritability, with 

 greater social intricacies — we have more frequent petty annoyances, 

 and they affect us more. With all our so-called social improvements, 

 is there not the same struggle between crime and its repression ? If 

 we have no longer highway robberies, how many more cases of fraud 

 exist, most of it not touched by our criminal laws ? As to litigation 

 I am perhaps not an imj)artial judge, but it seems to me that if law 

 w^ere as cheap as is desired, every next-door neighbour would be in 

 litigation. It would seem as if social order had never more than the 

 turn of the scale which is necessary to social existence in its favour 

 when contrasted with the disorganizing forces. Without that there 

 would be perpetual insurrections and anarchy. But though antago- 

 nism takes a different form it is still there. Are wars more regulated 

 by justice than of yore ? I venture to doubt it, though probably 

 many may disagree with me. National self-interest or self-aggrandise- 

 ment is, I think, the predominant factor, and is frequently admittedly 

 so. I also doubt if the old maxim, " If you wish for peace prepare for 

 war," is of much value. Large armaments and improvements in the 

 means of destruction (whose inventors are more thought of than the 

 discoverers of natural truths) are as frequently the cause of war as of 

 its prevention. Are wars less sanguinary with 100-ton guns than 

 with bows and arrows ? I cannot enter into statistics on this subject, 

 but a sensible writer who has, viz. Mr. Finlaison, came to the conclu- 

 sion that wars cease now as anciently, not in the ratio of the improve- 

 ments in killing implements, but from exhaustion of men or means. 

 Wars undoubtedly occur at more distant intervals, or the human race 

 would become extinct. Probably the largely increased competition 

 supi)lies their place : we fight commercially more and militarily less. 

 It is a sad reflection that man is almost the only animal that fights, 

 not for food or means of life or of perpetuating its race, but from 

 motives of the merest vanity, ambition, or passion. War is, however, 

 not wholly evil. It developes noble qualities — courage, endurance, 

 self-sacrifice, friendship, &c. — and tends to get rid of the silly encum- 

 brances of fashion and ostentation. But do the much bepraised 

 inventions of peace bring less antagonism ? Consider the enormous 

 labour and waste of time due to competition in the advertising system 



