PRINCE KROPOTKIN
Ethics, Origin and Development. By Prince Kropotkin.t - (Harrap. 12s. 6d.) PETER ALEXEIEVITCH, PRINCE KROPOTRIN, was exiled from his country only to become a prominent and honoured citizen, of the world. The Russian revolution, though it enabled him' to return to his own land, disappointed more of his hopes than ' it fulfilled, and left him, for the last three years of his failing life, poor in means and even nourishment, and yet more banished than before : for this last period, in the village of Dmitrov, was literally an exile from the great world which had received him as its own. The unfinished work on Ethics, now translated into English, was the last labour of his life. It can hardly be approached without some reverence ; for it is the last will and testament of a lofty human spirit.
Kropotkin has a definite value in the history of modern thought. When the theory of evolution first swept the intellectual world—and swept it a little off its balance— it was generally believed that Nature had been proved to be a gladiatorial arena, in which every unit of life waged unceasing war against every other. According to the doctrine of evolution, as taught by Huxley and others, and as 'generally understood, the very essence of the natural creation was the negation of human morality. At the same time, the supernatural basis of morality was being rapidly weakened. Thus, on two sides at once, it was made to appear that the moral nature of man was a fiction destitute of either Divine or natural reality. Probably no section of mankind ever passed through a more dangerous moral vicissitude ; and we have not yet recovered from some of its disintegrating effects. At this crisis of opinion, Kropotkin contributed proofs of a much-neglected factor in the process of evolution : he showed that society and social instincts existed before man ; that there were sociable animals and insects. Besides struggle, Nature contained co-operation and mutuality of function : and it was precisely this factor of mutual aid which was strongest in the evolution of the highest forms of life. In those days you could not be considered a sound thinker unless pin said there was no God. Kropotkin quite sincerely repeated the password, and then argued the Devil out of Nature instead of "proved his own argument" by much very able work as a naturalist. He had a definitely humanizing influence upon the strongest current of thought in his day.
This same Kropotkin tried in his last days to expand his idea into the rational basis of human ethics. After the revolti- tion he said repeatedly that it wastlie lack of a lofty moral ideal which had turned so many ho es of the new order into disappointments. The religious and metaphysical bases of ethics had disappeared ; and where was the complete, clear and authoritative ethics, built upon science and empirics, which humanity now required ? He would try to supply it— he, with the erudition of a good European savant, the heart of an enthusiast, and all the valour of hiS threescore years and ten, spent mostly in honest struggle for the good of mankind !
So Kropotkin begins this work by recapitulating the argu- ment of " Mutual Aid:" Insects and animals are social beings ; the rudiments and first developments of the social instinct can be traced in them, have sometimes been learnt from them by man. An instinctive sympathy, solidarity and altruism is an immediate value and also a survival value, in all the higher ranges of life. In man, the highest in development and strongest in survival, this quality is more evident than in any. Man's moral nature springs from a social instinct as deep and permanent as any other need in him. Very well. But what then ? Kropotkin's thought now manifests an uneasiness He admits that this inherited instinct cannot satisfy us in the search for the basis of human morality, and ventures the thought that the sense of Justice which is inherent in human reason is equally a factor in human ethics. Then, as if a little startled at his own metaphysicality, he hurries on to a bulky survey of what European writers upon ethics have concluded. Not only notable philosophers, from Plato to Herbert Spencer, but a host of minor writers such as Holbach, Beccaria, Morelly, Mably, are laboriously followed through their ethical cogita- tions. But learned and lucid as are all these summaries, Kropotkin's own thesis is so uricertain 'arid undeveloped that they merely lie -upOn its surface, like heaps of Marlon a barren field,---encumbering - what they = cannot fertilize. We ere astonished to find that the unfinished " Conclusion " is but the beginning of another summary of others' opinions ! If there was any consistent idea in these 'voluminous quotations, it was to sift out of ethical literature all that was derived from theological - andjmetaphysical' conceptions and-to retain only the pragmatical conclu-sions. Which is very remarkable. For Knapotkin's own ethical credo, scattered about the book in brief chapter-endings, is no less than this. There are three realities of ethics. -The social instinct, proved in Mutual Aid; is one. Appearing out of it, through the growth of indi- viditality, is the -conception of justice inherent in human reason (as metaphysical as anything Kropotkin ever deplored is Plato !) and from these together proceeds real Altruism, the power of Sacrifice. (Especially see p. 30.) What, 0 venerable agnostic ! is it a Trinity after all ? Did the spirit of Athanasius return to whisper in the ear of the lifelong enemy of religion and metaphysic ? Darkness over- took the old man before he had really written his Ethics. But he had said : I know that intellectual movements are not created by books ; but just the reverse is the case. If I were not so Old, I would not potter over a book on ethics, but actively participate in the building of the' new life." That
Previous page
