Theology at War and Peace: English Theology and Germany in the First World War 2016023484, 9781472478030, 9781315551265

Citation preview

i

Theology at War and Peace

This book is the first detailed discussion of the impact of the First World War on English theology. Assessing the close relationships between English and German theologians before the First World War, Chapman then explores developments throughout the war. A series of case studies make use of a large amount of unpublished material, showing how some theologians sought to maintain relationships with their German colleagues, while others, especially from a more Anglo-​Catholic perspective, used the war as an opportunity to distance themselves from the liberal theology which was beginning to dominate the universities before the war. The increasing animosity between Britain and Germany meant that relations were never healed. English theology became increasingly insular, dividing between a more home-​grown variety of liberalism and an ascendant Anglo-​Catholicism. Consequently, this book offers useful insights into the development of theology in the twentieth century and will be of keen interest to scholars and students of the history of theology. Mark D. Chapman is Professor of the History of Modern Theology at the University of Oxford and Vice-​Principal of Ripon College, Cuddesdon. He has written widely on the history of theology and the church. His most recent publications include Anglican Theology (2012), The Fantasy of Reunion:  Anglicans, Catholics, and Ecumenism, 1833–​1882 (2014), and Theology and Society in Three Cities: Berlin, Oxford and Chicago, 1800–​1914 (2014).

ii

This page intentionally left blank

iii

Theology at War and Peace English theology and Germany in the First World War Mark D. Chapman

iv

First published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2017 Mark D. Chapman The right of Mark D. Chapman to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data Names: Chapman, Mark D. (Mark David), 1960– author. Title: Theology at war and peace : English theology and Germany in the First World War / Mark D. Chapman. Description: New York : Routledge, [2016] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016023484 | ISBN 9781472478030 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315551265 (ebk) Subjects: LCSH: World War, 1914–1918–Religious aspects–Christianity. | Great Britain–Relations–Germany. | Germany–Relations–Great Britain. | Theology–History–20th century. | World War, 1914–1918–Influence. Classification: LCC D639.R4 C377 2016 | DDC 261.8/73094109041–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016023484 ISBN: 978-​1-​4724-​7803-​0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​315-​55126-​5 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Out of House Publishing

v

Contents

Acknowledgements

vi

Introduction

1

1 Theological responses in England to the South African War, 1899–​1902

5

2 Theology, nationalism, and the First World War: Christian ethics and the constraints of politics

23

3 Missionaries, modernism, and German theology: Anglican reactions to the outbreak of war in 1914

47

4 The Church of England, Serbia, and the Serbian Orthodox Church in the First World War

65

5 Anglo-​German theological relations in the First World War

81

6 The Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch Affair: theological relations between England and Germany after the First World War

106

7 The ‘sad story’ of Ernst Troeltsch’s proposed British Lectures of 1923

123

Bibliography Index

156 171

vi

Acknowledgements

This book is the fruit of a very long period of sporadic bursts of research into the First World War. I would never have written it without the guidance of the late Professor Christopher Evans, who for many years was a friend and a neighbour, and who was old enough to remember some of the characters in this volume. I still miss his company and our many conversations about German and English theological relationships. I  am also grateful to my doctoral supervisor, Robert Morgan, for his many kindnesses, and for keeping me enthused about the history of theology. He patiently read a fair number of these essays when I was a young post-​doctoral student wondering whether I might have an academic career. Friedrich Wilhelm Graf of Munich has also been a great source of support and friendship over the years since we first met thirty years ago. Many others have heard or read these chapters in various forms and have commented and helped me develop my ideas. But most of all I would like to thank my wife Linda Collins for all her support in allowing me to indulge my many perverse interests which sometimes take me away from her and from my cherished kitchen. It is to her that I dedicate this volume. Cuddesdon, Ash Wednesday 2016. All the chapters below are significantly revised versions of earlier studies, most of which were given as lectures, and which originally appeared in the following places. I am grateful to the respective publishers for permission to reprint the following material: Chapter 1 was given originally at the American Academy of Religion Nineteenth-​Century Studies Group at Montreal, 2008, and was published as ‘Theological Responses in England to the South African War, 1899–​1902’ in Zeitschrift für neuere Theologiegeschichte/​Journal for the History of Modern Theology (Walter de Gruyter) 16:2 (2009): 181–​96. Chapter 2 was given as a lecture to the Scripture, Theology and Society Group and was published as ‘Theology, Nationalism and the First World War: Christian Ethics and the Constraints of Politics’ in Studies in Christian Ethics (Sage) 8:2 (1995): 13–​35.

newgenprepdf vii

Acknowledgements vii Chapter 3 was originally given as a lecture at an international conference, ‘Culture, Theology and World War I:  A  Conference Engaging the Manifesto of the Ninety-​Three’, held at the University of Oxford on 19 September 2014 under the auspices of The Oxford Research Centre for the Humanities and was published in Zeitschrift für neuere Theologiegeschichte/​ Journal for the History of Modern Theology 22:2 (2015): 1–​17. Chapter 4 was first given at a conference on ‘Orthodox World and the First World War’, at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology of the University of Belgrade, Serbia, 5–​6 December 2014 and was published in Владислав Пузовић [Vladislav Puzović] (ed.), зборник радова са Међународног начног скупа Православни свет и Први светски рат [Proceedings of the Orthodox World and the First World War, 5–​ 6 December  2014], (Православни богословски факултет Универзитета [Belgrade:  Faculty of Orthodox Theology], Београд: Гласник, 2015), 385–​401. Chapter 5 was originally given at a meeting of the Oxford–​Bonn joint Theology Faculty seminar in Bonn in September 1997 and published as ‘Anglo-​ German Theological Relations during the First World War’ in Zeitschrift für neuere Theologiegeschichte/​Journal for the History of Modern Theology 7:1 (2000): 109–​26. Chapter 6 was published as ‘The Sanday, Sherrington and Troeltsch Affair: Theological relations between England and Germany after the First World War’, in Mitteilungen der Ernst Troeltsch Gesellschaft 6 (1991): 40–​71. Chapter 7 was published as ‘The “sad story” of Ernst Troeltsch’s Proposed British Lectures of 1923’ in Zeitschrift für neuere Theologiegeschichte 1:1 (1994): 96–​121.

viii

This page intentionally left blank

1



Introduction

This is a book about the impact of war on theology. It discusses the ways in which the First World War affected the relations between British theologians (especially English Anglicans) and their German counterparts. It also discusses the changing perceptions in Britain of German culture and its theology. By offering a number of detailed studies of different aspects of the First World War and its precursor in the Boer War, as well as of the restoration of relationships between British and German theologians after the war, I show how the theology –​and to some extent the broader church life of the Church of England –​were affected by the cataclysm of the First World War. It will become clear that the partisan identities which had become so entrenched in the pre-​war Church shaped the discourse of theology during the First World War. This was particularly associated with the critiques of liberalism which had made considerable inroads into English theology in the early years of the twentieth century. English modernism came to be tainted by its ‘Made in Germany’ origin. Furthermore, Anglo-​ Catholics were able to use the wartime alliances with Orthodox nations, especially Russia and Serbia, to bolster their conservative cause in the name of a broader ecumenism. This rhetorical assault mounted by several Anglo-​ Catholic theologians against liberalism served to scupper Anglo-​German theological relations in the delicate conditions after the war. It took a very long time before relationships between English and German theology were restored, and they never returned to their pre-​war state. Indeed, English liberalism took a different direction in the 1920s, as it moved away from its German origins. Overall, this had two effects: first, it helped boost Anglo-​ Catholicism as the ascendant force in the Church of England and, second, it created a very insular brand of English liberalism which remained quite untouched by theological developments on the Continent. Chapter 1 discusses theological responses in the Church of England to the South African War (1899–​1902), as reflected in sermons by theologians and church leaders, as well as the limited amount of theological writing on the subject during the period. It emphasizes three points: first is the strong sense in which the war was closely associated with the mission to civilize and Christianize. Indeed, the fact that the war was being fought against a

2

2 Introduction white enemy even led to a characterization of the Boer as uncivilized and primitive. Second, the British Empire was not understood simply as a means of promoting the British interest across the world, but was regarded at least potentially as a Christian Empire, which embodied higher universal values. For many theologians there was an emphasis on humility and judgement, whereby moral absolutes were relativized by the vision of a more universal goal. Such an approach to theology undoubtedly helped lessen the strength of some of the imperialist rhetoric. Finally, the higher values of self-​sacrifice created a sense of moral seriousness: the universal values displayed in love for the community were prioritized over those of a narrow patriotism or individualism that led to a greater sense of national solidarity, which shows similarities to the situation in the August days of 1914. The second chapter offers a critical reflection on the ways in which some leading theologians and church leaders in both England and Germany responded to the crisis in 1914. By discussing their response to the rapid rise of nationalism in the years leading up to the First World War, it shows how they sought to ensure that the practical constraints of political institutions continued to be drawn into theological and ethical judgements. It becomes clear that, although they were inevitably involved in compromise, Christian theologians usually sought to distance themselves from complete identity with the aims of the nation. Consequently, in the full recognition of the constraints of history, many theologians and church leaders, even including some who had been vigorous supporters of Germany’s war aims, made a constructive and critical attempt to reshape and reform history. Indeed, I suggest that had there been more theologians prepared to dirty their hands in the ugly task of reconstruction, then the course of European history after the First World War might perhaps have proved far less tragic. Chapter 3 discusses the close connections between the rhetoric of war and the party politics of the Church of England:  the Manifesto of the ninety-​ three German Intellectuals in support of Germany’s war aims –​the ‘Appeal to the Civilized World’ of October 1914  –​as well as the Address to the Evangelical Christians by German theologians from a few months before, both provided useful weaponry in the ecclesiastical disputes which had been stirred up after the Kikuyu Missionary Conference in Kenya in 1913. The thorny issue of the necessity of episcopacy and inter-​communion with Protestants shook the Church of England in the months leading up to the outbreak of war. The global dimension of the war and its effects on mission meant that Anglo-​Catholics had further weapons in their armoury as they pointed to the close connections between what they regarded as the bankruptcy of German culture and the ‘heresy’ of liberal theology by a number of conservative Anglo-​Catholics. At the same time, more liberal theologians were forced to distance themselves from their former German friends for fear of being seen as Germanophiles or heretics or both. Chapter 4 turns to the Eastern front and discusses the perception of the Serbian Orthodox Church by members of the Church of England in the

3

Introduction 3 early years of the First World War. Drawing on contemporary documents as well as unpublished writings, especially by the Oxford Anglo-​Catholic theologian Leighton Pullan, I show how a closer alliance with Orthodoxy provided another front for conservative Anglicans to attack theological liberalism. After a brief overview of some of the pamphlets which aimed to educate the British public about the Balkans, I discuss the church’s involvement in the Serbian Relief Fund, and the various church and medical representatives who responded to the call to assist in humanitarian relief in Serbia. Particularly important in raising awareness of Orthodoxy was the celebration of ‘Kosovo Day’ in 1916, where a rally was held in support of Serbian refugees at which the Archbishop of Canterbury gave an address. Equally important in consciousness-​raising were the visits of Fr Nicolaj Velimirović during the war. At the same time as informing members of the Church of England about the plight of Serbia and its Orthodox Church, this also led to ecumenical advances which included preaching and even celebrating the eucharist in Church of England churches. There were thus complex political and theological motivations behind ecumenism which in part were inspired by a powerful anti-​liberalism and anti-​Germanism. Chapter 5 charts the history of the personal relationships between a number of influential English and German theologians during the First World War. Using a large number of unpublished papers as well as newspaper articles, I show that through the war relations between a number of theologians were maintained, even though they became increasingly strained as the war progressed. It becomes clear that the background of developing animosity between the two countries after the outbreak of war began to cloud the judgement of even the most cosmopolitan theologians, which continued to affect the development of theology after the armistice in 1918. With a few notable exceptions a vibrant fruitful international dialogue seemed to die with William Sanday, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford. Chapter 6 builds on the previous chapter by closely analysing the conflict between the great Oxford physiologist C. C. Sherrington and William Sanday, one of the leading exponents of German theological thought in England. Even though Sanday was able to offer constructive proposals throughout the war, even in the heightened propaganda of the final German offensive of 1918, these were soon silenced by the intervention of Sherrington, who tried to show that Ernst Troeltsch, Germany’s leading liberal theologian, was guilty by his association with Prussian militarism even before the war. Sherrington almost single-​handedly put an end to constructive proposals at rapprochement with German liberal theology and any thought of compromise, since there were few others of Sanday’s stature who took up the cause of a negotiated peace. The repercussions of Sherrington’s intervention eventually prevented Troeltsch coming to England, which again helped nudge English theological thinking into a position of extreme insularity. What is certain is that the fertile theological interaction between Britain and Germany, which existed in the years before the First World War

4

4 Introduction and is witnessed to by the wealth of translations, would never be the same again. Sherrington’s action, however, was symptomatic of the whole mood of the last years of the war, which lasted through and beyond the discussions which led to the Versailles treaty. Chapter 7 charts the history of Ernst Troeltsch’s proposed visit to Great Britain in 1923. Drawing on a substantial body of unpublished sources, I outline the complex political and academic circumstances of the invitation and the subsequent lectures which he was prevented from delivering because of his premature death, which itself was brought on in part by the privations of the time. Although Troeltsch’s lectures, published as Christian Thought, are among the last of his writings and might therefore reveal something of the final direction of his thought, they have had remarkably little influence in subsequent theology. In Britain, where they had been intended to be delivered, this was partly due to a continuing anti-​German sentiment. Troeltsch’s chiefly ethical concerns in the lectures seemed unsuited to an English-​speaking audience increasingly interested in theological dispute more than political reconstruction. In some ways the fate of the lectures is a commentary on theology’s failure, both in Germany and for the most part also in Britain, to engage adequately with social and political reconstruction.

5

1 Theological responses in England to the South African War, 1899–​1902

The second Anglo-​Boer War of 1899–​1902 –​often referred to as the South African War –​is perhaps the most difficult of all the British imperial conflicts to understand. While there were comparatively few casualties among the combatants on either the British or Boer side,1 it has nevertheless been regarded as South Africa’s ‘Great War’.2 The historical importance of the war and its legacy continue to be highly contested and have been the subject of much discussion, at both an academic and popular level.3 On the one hand, there are tales of heroism and of a dogged determination by the Boer commandos against their mighty foe;4 on the other hand, there are recent studies of the effects of the war on the African population.5 Since the war played such a key role in the formation of the identities which have shaped the course of South Africa through the twentieth century, interpretations have always been highly charged. For instance, from the very beginning of the war, the popular rhetoric of chivalry and of the ‘gentlemanly’6 war rubbed up against the far more ambiguous reality of cruelty, disease and hardship exacerbated by the scorched earth policy of Lord Herbert Kitchener (1850–​1916) and Lord Frederick Roberts (1832–​1914). Similarly, the enforced internment of displaced people, mainly women and children, in ‘concentration camps’ was the subject of much discussion in the British press during the war itself, where the rightness of British colonial policy was questioned.7 Because of this profound effect on the civilian population, both black and Boer, it is possible to see the South African War as the first ‘total war’ in modern history.8 In Britain too, the war had a powerful effect:  in some ways it marked the high point of imperialism. The popular response at home was often characterised by extreme jingoism, which could lead to great public displays of fervour (as with the festivities which followed the relief of Mafeking in May 1900). Rallies of the war’s opponents, the so-​called ‘pro-​Boers’, were sometimes broken up by populist gangs. At the same time, the war revealed important aspects of a changing understanding of the nature of imperialism:  indeed, it might be seen as initiating a new phase in British colonial history. Crucially, the war was regarded by some –​most famously the economist J. A. Hobson (1858–​1940) –​as the beginning of the end of imperialism,

6

6  The South African War or at least as revealing it in its true economic colours. Far from simply carrying the higher values of British civilisation to the outside world, imperialism began to be reconceived as the merciless exploitation of resources which paid little attention to the welfare of the native peoples.9 Such approaches to imperialism, however, remained the exception:  most domestic British responses to the War were far more supportive. This chapter addresses the rhetoric of imperialism as it was displayed by a number of preachers and theologians of the Church of England during the Boer War.10 While there have been some studies of the effects of the South African War on the churches both in England and South Africa,11 there have been no extensive discussions of the response among theologians and preachers in the Church of England. My interest is not primarily in the rightness or wrongness of imperial policy; neither is it in the effectiveness or the morality of the conduct of the war (something, which, especially in its later stages, provoked hostile reaction from many churchmen and women).12 Instead my focus is far more limited: my chief interest is in the characterisation of the British Empire as a Christian –​and consequently universal –​ideal. This provides a background to the perceptions of the Christian Empire in the Great War only a decade and a half later.

The complexities of race A factor which made the Boer War more complex than earlier colonial wars was that it was perceived to be a ‘white man’s war’ fought by one group of Christian Europeans against another. The rhetoric which spoke of the British mission to civilize and Christianize the ‘childlike’ heathen was thus rendered far more questionable:  there were no longer the clear-​cut certainties such as those displayed by General Kitchener’s defeat of Abdullah al-​Taaisha at the Battle of Omdurman in the Sudan in 1898. The issues of race were well expressed by one of the leading Anglican opponents of British policy, Henry Scott Holland (1847–​1918), Canon of St Paul’s, and later Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford: Why is it that the war in South Africa offers no real standard of what constitutes true imperialism? Because no normal development of the Empire ought to include the conquest of a white race … The Empire, as a moral ideal, has never contemplated so harsh a possibility as that of having to break a white nationality, and then to rule it by compulsion.13 Another Anglican opponent of the war, Canon Edward Lee Hicks (1843–​ 1919),14 Canon of Manchester Cathedral and afterwards Bishop of Lincoln, who had presided over the Manchester Transvaal Peace Committee from its foundation in November 1899, preached in early 1900 against what he called ‘this needless, fratricidal war. … [The Boers] are fighting for their independence. Their love of liberty is a passion; they have religious zeal for

7

The South African War 7 freedom which recalls the heroism of the Maccabean Jews’.15 In August he preached in the Cathedral:  ‘Prejudice and passion have prevailed instead of calm and collected reason. Few have examined the official records, the actual facts. Statements of the wildest sort, pleas wholly groundless, have taken hold of the popular mind’.16 The Gladstonian Dean of Durham, G. W. Kitchin (1827–​1912), who was the most senior anti-​war churchman, became president of Gateshead and District Branch of the South Africa Conciliation Committee, an act which led to his resignation as chaplain to the Durham Corporation.17 He was well-​known for his denunciation of the ‘gin-​palace spirit of Jingoism’.18 Preaching in his cathedral on loving one’s enemies,19 he noted that the prejudice and angry ignorance have persuaded us that the enemy was but a horde of savages, who would run away at once. The whole temper of our times is so utterly anti-​Christian that it appals me when, from the quietude of this home, I look out upon it all, and note the intolerance with which men hate opinions opposed to the momentary enthusiasm.20 Looking for a more Christian principle to stand between ‘the natives and the aggression of Europeans’, he upheld the virtues of a gentleman’s war based on ‘the Christian precept of love and brotherhood’,21 especially when what he regarded as the imperial British Goliath was pitted against the Boer David. The ambiguities of race, however, also shaped the rhetoric of those actively supporting the war. Preaching at Westminster, the patristics scholar and Canon of Westminster and Rector of St Margaret’s (and Dean from 1902), J. Armitage Robinson (1858–​1933),22 for instance, was explicit about the need to plant the virtues of equality in all those of the ‘Anglo-​Saxon’ race in South Africa. Britain, he believed, was fighting for a higher set of ideals against the exclusivist national ideals of the Boers. The arduous task now facing Britain was the assertion of equality between all men of European descent in the regions of South Africa for which we have any responsibility. It is a struggle to maintain the British ideal –​the open door of civic liberty –​ against a lower ideal, the prevalence of which, our experience has taught us, must be a curse to humanity. … The task has proved far heavier than any of us had imagined. We are facing a people not only armed with the most modern weapons behind almost inaccessible entrenchments: but, what is more, a people fighting for an ideal –​lower than our ideal indeed, an ideal of exclusiveness and of racial domination, –​but yet an ideal, and one closely resembling that of ancient Israel, and only wrong by comparison with a higher ideal; and so maintaining a cause upon which they (no less sincerely than we on our part) can invoke the blessing of God.23

8

8  The South African War To maintain the higher ideal placed a particular responsibility upon Britain which involved ‘costly obligations’ and ‘personal sacrifices’,24 which would lead to a ‘renewed consciousness of strength and of mission’. In short God: has indeed pushed us forward to the forefront of his purpose. He has chosen to work out through the Anglo-​Saxon race a fresh stage in the development of the great human unity  –​a family of kindred nationalities, bound together not by force, but only by the natural bonds of mutual reverence, filial and parental love: free to part, yet never so eager to cling together; labouring to conciliate ancient differences, and desiring to stand for freedom and for peace, against all the world beside. For this we thank God. And we thank Him that He has made us here the centre of so vast a work for humanity.25 The goal of the war was thus to rekindle brotherly affection between all the white races. Like most of his contemporaries, however, Robinson was silent on the possibility of equality with the African peoples. Joseph Hammond (1839–​ 1912), apologist, historian and vicar of St Austell in Cornwall, preaching on ‘The Prayers we owe to our Country’ on the national day of intercession in 1900, expressed a similar sentiment to Robinson.26 The point of prayer, he claimed, was not to ‘add lustre to the English name’ since ‘that would be a piece of vain glory and conceit, for what can the Creator, the Lord of Heaven and earth, care for the English name; He is the Father and Lover of all men?’27 This meant that it was crucial that the British should not ‘tyrannize or trample on [the Boers]; the Pax Britannica is never cruel; we have ever been generous to a conquered foe; we should seek to build them up into the fabric of the State’. In turn it was important to pray ‘for the sake of human progress, for the sake of liberty and order and good government and justice to the native races’.28 This was because The English race has a perfect genius for colonization, for constitutional machinery, for liberal institutions. … And this is why God has given us so large a slice of the earth’s surface; this is why he designs, as I believe, that we should be paramount in Africa. Our triumph would mean political and commercial equality for all white men alike; … For this reason I invite you to pray for the success of our arms.29 While black men deserved the benefit of good government, all white men alike should have the benefit of political and commercial equality. Such an ambiguity over race became obvious in the build up to the war, which was fought  –​at least ostensibly  –​over the treatment of the white ‘uitlanders’ by Paul Kruger’s white government in the Transvaal. This meant that the war had an internecine Anglo-​Saxon feel from the very outset. One of the early commentators on Dutch settlement in South Africa, the

9

The South African War 9 Canadian George McCall Theal (1837–​1919), claimed, for instance, that the Boers could be regarded as ‘men of our own race. … They spoke a dialect which our great Alfred would have understood without much difficulty; their religion was that of the people of Scotland’.30 Not surprisingly, then, there was a great deal of confusion about precisely how the race card was to be played in the South African War. Others, including the liberal politician and academic James Bryce (1838–​ 1922), who later spoke out against the concentration camps policy, were able to construct a more dualistic narrative, demonizing the Boers as uncivilized primitive farmers living in the seventeenth century. Indeed, for Bryce, they were almost as uncivilized as the native population.31 Nevertheless he also believed that the ‘stock they spring from is strong and sound; and they have carried with them to their new home the best traditions of Teutonic freedom and self-​government’,32 which meant that they had to be considered as brothers and sisters.33 Such contradictory views influenced approaches to the war in the Church of England. For instance, shortly before the outbreak of war the prominent Anglo-​Catholic preacher, W. J. Knox-​Little (1839–​1918), Canon of Worcester and vicar of the ritualist church at Hoar Cross, Staffordshire, published an account of his travels in South Africa the previous year.34 Refusing to see the Boers as the ‘simple, guileless people struggling bravely for freedom, as devout and pious Bible-​reading Christians’ of the popular imagination, he claimed that the Boer regime was ‘one of the narrowest and most corrupt oligarchies –​nay, perhaps one may say, one of the most tyrannical autocracies –​that the world has ever seen’.35 He went on to highlight the misgovernment of ‘some 100,000 of the Anglo-​Saxon races –​English, American, German’ by ‘men inferior in knowledge and civilisation’.36 It was Britain’s responsibility in such a situation to withstand ‘injustice and wrongdoing with manly energy’.37 It was hardly surprising that he should later write to the Times claiming that the Boer War was ‘one of the most righteous wars –​as most of us believe –​ever waged’.38 He was equally vehement in his opposition to the opponents at home.39 At the same time there were calls coming out of South Africa asking for assistance. Mrs Henrietta Stakesby Lewis (1850–​1912), sister to W.  P. Schreiner (1857–​1919), Prime Minister of Cape Colony, and the radical campaigner Olive Schreiner (1855–​1920), for instance, wrote an impassioned plea in 1900: British soldiers are dying on African soil to-​ day to put an end to A CONDITION OF ATROCIOUS WRONG … For over two hundred years the progenitors of the Transvaal Republic and their descendants have crushed, maltreated, and, as far as they had power to do so, robbed of all rights belonging to them as fellow human beings the coloured peoples of this land … Because of this British soldiers are truly battling for the Lord of Hosts.40

10

10  The South African War Heeding such calls from South Africa, many felt the war was being fought against another injustice:  its main purpose was to protect the black population from oppression by the white government of the South African Republic. The Evangelical Sir John Kennaway (1837–​1919), Conservative MP and President of the Church Missionary Society, for instance, justified the war as a struggle for the rights of the black majority.41 Similarly, in the early months of the War, the broad churchman James Maurice Wilson (1836–​1931), Archdeacon of Manchester, lectured on the need to overcome what he called the ‘strong race-​prejudices’ of the white settlers, partly to counteract the attraction of the more universalist religion of Islam.42 He went on to note that the ‘white races, especially the Dutch, seem unable to believe in the sensitiveness of the coloured races to insult, and their quick intelligence to see the inconsistency of the lives with the creeds of professing Christians’. Noting that the African population was quite able to discern hypocrisy, he continued: one of the greatest dangers to us is that we should forget our duty to the natives, and adopt a lower standard. If we are unworthy to have an empire –​and surely it is for this reason that it is intrusted to us –​we shall lose it, and we ought to lose it. It is the first duty of England now to see that all the influences brought to bear on the South African problem shall be humane, Christian, worthy of our best, not a disgrace even to our worst. Here lies the opportunity for the Church now. … The war may thus be a blessing to England and to the world, if it teaches us the real responsibilities of empire, and makes us all realise that we are an instrument in God’s hand, for the bettering of the world, for hastening the coming of the kingdom, and in particular for securing the humane treatment and the ultimate Christianisation of the native races, and for making South Africa into a United States of peace instead of a European cockpit of armies. What these different responses reveal about the approaches of different churchmen to the issue of race is that it was both contentious and unresolved. Not surprisingly similar attitudes were reflected in the South African churches.43 Although there was the occasional call for African equality, far more often treatment of the native population was considered to be solely a humanitarian question. Full participation in the institutions of the British Empire and the universalism of the democratic values it stood for were most often to be restricted solely to those of Anglo-​Saxon descent. This explains why Boer separatism even from other white settlers posed such a difficult problem.44

The Church of England and the rhetoric of empire From its outset, clergy and leaders of the Church of England were inevitably concerned with justifying and explaining the Boer War to their congregations

11

The South African War 11 from a Christian point of view. Such an approach led some commentators during and immediately after the war to regard the churches as principally involved in inciting bloodlust and promoting jingoism. J.  A. Hobson, for instance, regarded the churches as promoting ‘a tribal God of Battles who shall fight with our big battalions and help us crush our enemies’.45 He was not alone: Keir Hardie (1856–​1915), leader of the nascent Labour Party, spoke of his disgust at what he called ‘nauseous clergy’, and John Morley (1838–​ 1923), Liberal politician and Gladstone’s biographer, denounced ‘pulpit militarism’.46 After the War, Alfred Marks (1833–​1912), treasurer of the Stop the War Movement,47 whose chairman was the well-​known Baptist preacher John Clifford (1836–​1923) and which was supported by the campaigning journalist W. T. Stead (1849–​1912), drew together a collection of utterances by churchmen who had supported British belligerence.48 In general, however, such charges of unbridled jingoism by churchmen and theologians were wide of the mark. Despite an almost universal support for British war aims, most of them sought a purgation of the worst excesses of patriotism and imperialism: a degree of humility was considered central to the Christian approach. This alone would ensure that a universal Christian dimension was retained. This approach was demonstrated by Armitage Robinson in a sermon preached shortly after the outbreak of war. Although he claimed that the war was a ‘divinely-​appointed task’, he nevertheless called upon his congregation to ‘purge our imperialism from the dross of self-​seeking and vain-​ glory’.49 Similarly, in a lengthy set of reflections preached on Advent Sunday, 1899, soon after the beginning of the war, R.  C. Moberly (1845–​1903), Regius Professor of Pastoral Theology at Oxford and Canon of Christ Church, discussed the religious aspect of military force in the imperial context.50 The greatness of Empire, he held, was rooted in the moral character of the British people, which in turn found its basis in God: It is moral fibre, it is discipline which rules self to the point of self-​ sacrifice, it is the surrender of all the conditions of life, and of life itself, for the purposes which make life worth living; it is things like these, very near to the true essence of the religious spirit which give to the men of any nation self-​command and self-​control and courage and endurance through disaster; … Even force, then, is not force brutally or merely. It is moral force which really dominates the world; not in antithesis against, but rather (with whatever apparent exceptions) as a real basis of material power. But the present point is rather to insist that, when moral qualities like these have produced their fruit as imperial dominion, all the facts alike of the past record and the present opportunity are together misconceived and misread unless it is effectually recognised that, just as the moral qualities which issued in empire had a basis which was of God, so the real purpose and use of the empire, when attained, must be God’s use and purpose altogether.

12

12  The South African War This meant that dominion is a stewardship conferred by God, and is intended neither for the swelling of the material comfort, nor for the glory and pride of the ruling nation; but that they may duly execute, as stewards, the purposes of God, for the sake of which alone they have been trained and fitted as instruments. This had been demonstrated in the good government which had been offered to India and to the Sudan through the Christ-​like sacrifice of men such as General Gordon. The burden of Empire thus carried with it responsibilities for mission and the progress for all mankind: Be the cause of Christ as much wider, as much holier, as you please, than any thought of empire; yet, in fact, by God’s providence, there is, for the present, a connection which is not obscure between the two. The connection is not of our choosing; but to discern it is our duty and privilege. In respect at least of the people whom God has put into our hand, our position is not without its parallel with that of the Jews of old, who were themselves rich in blessings –​yet not for themselves so much as for all mankind. The British Empire thus brought with it a series of universal duties and responsibilities which were pitted against the selfish particularities of its opponents. After the initial military setbacks in the first stage of the war, a day of intercession was set aside on Septuagesima Sunday (the third Sunday before Lent), 11 February 1900. Large numbers of sermons were preached and special services were held across the country.51 Jingoism and patriotism were almost always tempered by a sense of a higher calling. In the run up to the day, for instance, Armitage Robinson spoke of the importance of a ‘fuller consecration’ for service rather than a ‘foolish pride’.52 Even though he claimed that ‘[o]‌ur nation at the close of this century has reached a position of prosperity, power and prestige, which has no parallel in history’, it was nevertheless vital that the British Empire did not succumb to the brute force and oppression that had characterized the earlier empires of Rome and Napoleon.53 Instead it was necessary to offer the subject peoples the protection and ‘the guidance and the unity which are the blessings of a family life’.54 H. J. Wilmot Buxton (1843–​1911), Vicar of St Giles in the Wood, North Devon, and a well-​known preacher of the time, preached on ‘God with Us’.55 Even though the British flag flew ‘over nearly every land’, and ‘our language is spoken in the very farthest regions’, he claimed, it was nevertheless crucial that we did not become ‘arrogant and boastful’56 or forget the divine source of our strength. If that happened then it would be likely that the armies would

13

The South African War 13 suffer reverse for the sins of the nation. If the accursed thing is in our midst, in our public life, in our morality, in our marriage laws, in our commerce, in our social habits, can we wonder if the Lord should not go forth with our armies.57 Humility before God was central, Wilmot Buxton warned, since ‘God putteth the mighty from their seat, and exalteth the humble and meek. He has done it before, he will do it again’.58 The theme of humility was taken up in another sermon for the day of intercession by Somerset Corry Lowry (1855–​1932), popular theologian, hymn writer and Vicar of North Holmwood, near Dorking in Surrey. Preaching on ‘Heart and Hands Uplifted’, he insisted that even if the British flag had been ‘floating on the ramparts of Pretoria, it is quite possible that in God’s sight there might be equal need of humiliation on our part, perhaps even greater need, because of the greater inducements to boastfulness and arrogance’.59 There was a need for moral purification of the nation so that it might ‘amend its doings under His chastening scourge’. Otherwise it was quite feasible that Britain would be reaping its just rewards: ‘In the insolence of our luxury, in the foul stream of our impurity, in the shameless audacity of our infidelity, is there nothing to provoke His judgments and to call down his chastisement?’60 If prayers were answered then God would bring about a lasting peace, so that this time of suffering and suspense may be the birth-​throes of a happier and a brighter life for Africa; that our rule from henceforth may be worthier of the traditions of a great nation; and that the solemn responsibilities laid upon us, in the providence of God, may be used henceforward for His honour and His glory.61 Later in the year A. J. Mason (1851–​1928), Lady Margaret’s Professor at Cambridge and Canon of Canterbury, preached at Westminster Abbey on the feast of the translation of St Edward the Confessor (13 October 1900). In a lengthy sermon he presented an extended discussion of true and false patriotism.62 Imperialism, he held, was ‘in need of discipline and guidance, or it will go wrong’: clearly there is a patriotism –​a pseudo-​patriotism –​which is culpably selfish, just as there is a family affection, a devotion to the interests of a family, which is culpably selfish. God save us from being drawn into it. If the Transvaal war is to end in heightened self-​esteem and the glorification of the British Empire, then it would have been better for us to have failed and to be defeated. War must not be allowed to lead to the error of the Chaldeans who had succumbed to an ‘impious glorification of their own might’ since this would

14

14  The South African War inevitably lead to ‘self-​idolatry’. Developing his prophetic theme by alluding to the poetry of Empire, he continued: It is not only the voices of us poor unheeded clergymen that warn you. Men discount all our utterances, because they think that we are committed beforehand to certain ways of looking at matters. But the freest and most modern and most masculine of English writers tell you the same. I  do not hold with all that Mr. Kipling has written. I  fear that much of what he has said goes to confirm people in thinking that some forms of immorality are inevitable and even right. But it is Mr. Kipling who has taken up the position of the Hebrew prophet, and bidden you not to put your trust in what he is pleased to call ‘reeking tube and bursting shard’, and calls for God’s mercy upon us, ‘lest we forget’.63 Rudyard Kipling the prophet helped temper national pride. What was crucial, then, was that the temptations to national self-​ aggrandizement and materialism should be limited by a sense of humility, self-​sacrifice and responsibility. With a strong rhetorical flourish, Mason concluded by citing Horace (Ode III): These are the things for which a true and enlightened patriotism will care most –​even if only for the purpose of preserving our due position among the nations. ‘Dis te minorem quod geris, imperas’. ‘You rule’, said a heathen poet to the heathen Romans, ‘because in your conduct you recognise God to be over you’. Our real weaknesses lie, not in an ill-​managed War-​office or in a niggardly Exchequer, but in national sins unchecked. ‘Hoc fonte derivata clades’, I  continue to quote from the great heathen ode, ‘in patriam populumque fluxit:’ ‘It is from this source that disaster flows into our country and her people’. Let us arise and work against the corruptions that sap our national life. Then, when the great catastrophe arrives, when God comes from Teman, and beholds and drives asunder the nations, and threshes the heathen in anger, we may be able, like Habakkuk, to rejoice in the Lord, and to joy in the God of our salvation. What these sermons display is an attitude towards imperialism that is far from straightforwardly jingoistic. Drawing principally from Old Testament texts they reveal what amounts to a strong sense of prophetic critique of petty nationalism. The British Empire, if it was to be considered Christian, had to express itself in universal terms rather than simply identify itself with the claims of any particular people. To be Christian, the British Empire had to face the world in humility and with responsibility. Otherwise it would invite disaster upon itself as was recognized by Charles Gore.64

15

The South African War 15

National solidarity Alongside this approach to imperialism was another more positive attitude towards the war which recognized a revitalised sense of national solidarity. This was something that was most prominent on the domestic front. In what might in hindsight be regarded as a ‘trial run’ for the First World War fifteen years later, many welcomed the renewed sense of national unity, along with the universal values of humanity triumphing over the particularity of nationalism and individualism. For instance, preaching shortly after the outbreak hostilities on ‘The Hope of a Nation’,65 Armitage Robinson claimed that there are times when a nation becomes for a while vividly conscious of its corporate life. These times are not the dangerous ‘hours of wealth’, but the more blessed, because the more uniting, moments of common anxiety and trouble. Then it is that a silence is made in which you almost hear the pulsings of that mighty heart: then the great and small alike forget their miserable individuality, and rise to remember that they are parts of a whole.66 The war offered a remedy to the unfettered individualism of the late Victorian years. To illustrate his point, Armitage Robinson told a touching story: A young lad said to me two nights ago, fixing his deep earnest gaze upon me for some time before he spoke, ‘You will pray for the soldiers, won’t you?’ And when I asked him whether he had any friend in the campaign, he said, ‘No –​but it does seem so terrible’. More than the speeches of all the politicians that simple incident told me that we were one. In reckoning up what spiritual gains we may set against the evils and losses of war, we shall do well to lay stress on its proved power to unite the Nation as a single man in presence of a common trouble.67 This sense of unity was ‘God’s highest gift to a people’.68 A few weeks later, Armitage Robinson spoke of a renewed sense of unity which was brought about by a ‘crisis in the history of the English people, which we cannot measure at the moment, and which will decide issues for a long future. These things are a call to a religious seriousness’.69 The war had brought with it a new commitment to service, humility, and dependence on God.70 Similarly, Brooke Foss Westcott, Bishop of Durham (1825–​1901) and one of the leading biblical scholars of the period, preached at the Durham service of intercession on the obligations of empire.71 He noted that what seemed like a great crisis also provided a great opportunity to build up the common good:72

16

16  The South African War On the whole the record of our growth reveals a serious desire to use national endowments for the common good of the race. We have not, speaking summarily, made conquests for selfish advantage. What we have won, we have won for the civilised world.73 What was crucial, he felt, was to ensure that the British people lived up to their responsibilities and did not succumb to ‘monstrous vices’ such as ‘drunkenness, gambling, profligacy which were rampant about them’,74 and which had ‘dulled our vision of spiritual things’.75 The war, however, brought with it a new moral seriousness and sense of unity: As in a moment all has been changed. An imperial call has been met by an imperial temper. The spiritual is felt to be alone real. The objects of earthly ambition are abandoned that the volunteer may offer all he is to his country. In every quarter of the world men contend for the privilege of showing that they love their ancient mother to the death. Here is a victory of devotion which no chance can mar; a revelation of national unity which no jealousies can disturb.76 At the service of intercession at St Paul’s Cathedral, the Orientalist and Bampton Lecturer Prebendary Stanley Leathes (1830–​ 1900) saw the ‘present crisis’ as a ‘call for prayer and for heart-​searching before God’. The war, he held, provided the opportunity to ‘sink personal and class interests in zeal for the welfare of the community, and to learn that patriotism or love for the Fatherland could not be a spirit alien to His Who wept over Jerusalem’. Similarly, preaching at Westminster Abbey, Canon Albert Wilberforce (1841–​1916) commented that the ‘cross of stubborn reserve which characterized the British race and caused us to be misunderstood and disliked by Continental people had yielded under the pressure of common anxiety’. The crisis provoked by the war had disclosed a sense of solidarity, a ‘calm, resolute determination, a capacity for self-​sacrifice which no hostile combination could for one moment overawe’.77 For Joseph Hammond in Cornwall, there was a realization that the war had taught Britain something about its high sense of ‘vocation as the handmaid of the Lord’.78 It provided the opportunity that ‘may leave us truer and better men’. This would lead to a moral purification, allowing ‘the swelling tide of drunkenness and impurity’ to be stemmed.79 Similarly for Wilmot Buxton, the duty of the British is to join all together in intercession before the throne of grace. Unity is everything, especially in prayer. In the last battle with the Khalifa fought so recently, they found the bodies of two Arab brothers, who had bound themselves together with a cord, and so gone united to conquer or die. We as members of Christ’s Holy Church should be bound together by the cord of love –​love for Jesus, love for each other. … England will

17

The South African War 17 be more blessed when she is less talked about, less written about, less boasted about, and more prayed about. England will be at her best when all her sons recognize that they are brothers, and that it is their plain duty to pray for each other.80 Canon George Venables (1821–​1908), Rector of Burgh Castle Church, Suffolk, took this theme of the need for moral renewal to the extreme.81 Preaching on the theme of ‘A Stinging Rod for a Sinning Nation’ he railed against national arrogance: The national avoidance of God, the calm and quiet manner in which the whole people (of course with some exceptions) is willing to ignore him, and to shew that God is not in all our thoughts could hardly go unpunished. Our legislature barely recognises God in constitution or legislation.82 God had humiliated Britain in order that it might return to ‘grand old simple truths again’.83 Indeed this was being shown in a number of unlikely ways: ‘Look at the self-​denial of ladies of high birth gladly mingling with others in doing all in their power for sufferers in the fight!’84 In short, he concluded: But the ‘Rod of God is heard’, and already great results are appearing. I  believe that enormous blessings, temporal and spiritual, are to be the fruit of this needed chastening. Brotherly kindness is set free to work, the habit of true liberality is being manifested; and, being once again learned, will extend to the promotion of things spiritual (so much neglected in comparison with our enormous means) as well as of temporal necessities. This mood continued through the course of the war. Preaching at Westminster Abbey in the autumn of 1900, A.  J. Mason emphasized the sense of national unity as something which was ‘as Divinely implanted in us as the sense of family ties’.85 It would be ‘a shameful and disastrous defect in us if we were without it’. Following the recent ‘Khaki’ October election the sentiment had grown even stronger. The effect of military setbacks as well as the opposition to British policy displayed by a number of European countries had enhanced ‘the sense of our national and imperial unity beyond all that went before it’. Like other wars, then, the Boer War helped instil a sense of national unity and moral earnestness in what appeared to be a climate of individualism and hedonism.

Conclusion Three points emerge from this brief survey of sermons and addresses by Anglican churchmen and theologians during the Boer War. First is the strong

18

18  The South African War sense in which the mission to civilize and Christianize shaped the way in which the indigenous population was perceived. While there was naturally little questioning of the right of the Anglo-​Saxon races to rule with justice and equity, equality was usually reserved only for those who were civilized or mature enough to understand its implications. This shows the influence of the educational metaphor, which had shaped so much Anglican Christianity through the nineteenth century:  Christianity was about growing up from immaturity to maturity. What was displayed most obviously in the Platonist ideals of the public schools, which provided the bulk of the leadership for the Church of England, also structured  –​probably unconsciously  –​the rhetoric of Empire.86 The fact that the war was being fought against a white enemy complicated the issue, although there was a frequent characterization (or demonization) of the Boer as uncivilized and primitive.87 Secondly, the British Empire was not understood by the churchmen cited simply as a means of promoting the British interest or British values across the world. It was very different from the bold colonialism of Cecil Rhodes, who claimed to have ‘walked between earth and sky and when I  looked down I said “This earth should be English” and when I looked up, I said “England should rule the earth” ’.88 Instead, for most churchmen, the British Empire did not derive from the God-​given right to rule. Instead it was regarded as at least potentially a Christian Empire which embodied higher universal values that applied to all once they had reached an appropriate level of civilization. Again the broad church influence is strong. The emphasis of most of the sermons is on humility and judgement, whereby all moral absolutes are relativized by the vision of a higher more universal goal. This undoubtedly helped lessen the strength of some of the imperialist rhetoric. Finally, for most Anglican churchmen, the higher values of self-​sacrifice and service required during the crisis provoked by the war inevitably created a renewed sense of moral seriousness: again the universal values displayed in love for the community were prioritized over those of a narrow patriotism or individualism. In a manner not far removed from the so-​called ‘August days’ of the beginning of the First World War, which is discussed in Chapter  3 below, the Boer War helped foster, in the words of Roland Stromberg, an ‘antidote to anomie’, at least on the domestic front.89 At the same time, the war revealed the inherent tensions in imperial rhetoric as it rubbed up against Christianity. What is interesting is that, even though Anglicanism, which with its long history of identity with the English nation, was perhaps particularly susceptible to the imperialist myth, the strong dose of Platonism injected in the nineteenth century meant that it nevertheless functioned as a modest check on unfettered jingoism. Indeed, a limited degree of prophetic critique –​albeit deeply ambiguous, compromised and sometimes racist –​remained the dominant theological discourse of Anglicanism, even at the highest point of imperialism. It will be seen through the course of this book that a similar approach continued in the much larger and far more devastating war only a few years later.

19

The South African War 19

Notes 1 British losses were about 22,000, of whom over 13,000 died from disease. It is not known how many Boers died. See Bill Nasson, The South African War, 1899–​ 1902 (London: Arnold, 1999), 279. 2 Bill Nasson, ‘Totsiens to all that? South Africa’s Great War, 1899–​1902’, South African Historical Journal 32 (1995): 191–​205. 3 See, for example, the essays included in David Omissi and Andrew Thompson (eds), The Impact of the South African War (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002); John Gooch (ed.), The Boer War:  Direction, Experience and Image (London:  Cass, 2000); and Donal Lowry (ed.), The South African War Re-​ appraised (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000). For a general historiographical survey, see Bill Nasson, ‘Waging Total War in South Africa: Some Centenary Writings on the Anglo-​Boer War, 1899–​1902’, The Journal of Military History 66 (2002): 813–​28. 4 See, for instance, Fransjordan Pretorius, The Great Escape of the Boer Pimpernel, Christian de Wet: The Making of a Legend (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 2001). 5 Peter Warwick, Black People and the South African War, 1899–​ 1902 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). 6 For a recent reassessment, see Paula M. Krebs, Gender, Race, and the Writing of Empire: Public Discourse and the Boer War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). 7 The most important and influential account was by Emily Hobhouse, The Brunt of the War and Where it Fell (London:  Methuen, 1902). Such policies have recently been reappraised from a variety of perspectives:  see Paula M. Krebs, ‘“The Last of the Gentlemen’s Wars”:  Women in the Boer War Concentration Camp Controversy’, History Workshop Journal 33 (1992): 38–​56. 8 See Hew Strachan, ‘General Editor’s Preface’ in Nasson, The South African War, ix. 9 See J. A. Hobson, Imperialism:  A  Study (London:  Nisbet, 1902). For a useful account of feelings in Britain, see also Stephen M. Miller, ‘In Support of the “Imperial Mission”? Volunteering for the South African War, 1899–​1902’, The Journal of Military History 69 (2005): 691–​711. 10 I have used the term ‘Boer War’ as well as ‘South African War’ since this was the term used most frequently at the time. 11 See, for example, Margaret Blunden, ‘The Anglican Church during the War’ in Peter Warwick (ed.), The South African War:  The Anglo-​Boer War 1899–​ 1902 (London:  Longman, 1980), 279–​ 91; Greg Cuthbertson, ‘Pricking the “nonconformist conscience”: religion against the South African War’ in Donal Lowry (ed.), The South African War Re-​appraised, 169–​87; Greg Cuthbertson, ‘Preaching Imperialism: Wesleyan Methodism and the War’ in David Omissi and Andrew Thompson (eds), The Impact of the South African War, 157–​72; Hope Hay Hewison, Hedge of Wild Almonds:  South Africa, the Pro-​Boers and the Quaker Conscience 1890–​1910 (London: James Currey, 1989). 12 Bishop John Percival of Hereford criticized concentration camps and championed Emily Hobhouse. See William Temple, Life of Bishop Percival (London:  Macmillan, 1921), 247–​50. Charles Gore was also vigorous in his critique of concentration camps. See G. L. Prestige, The Life of Charles Gore (London: Heinemann, 1935), 224–​7. 13 Henry Scott Holland, Commonwealth (October 1901): 302. 14 On Hicks and the Boer War, see Graham Neville, Radical Churchman: Edward Lee Hicks and the New Liberalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 188–​93; G. R. Evans, Edward Hicks:  Pacifist Bishop at War (Oxford:  Lion Hudson,

20

20  The South African War 2014), 63–​5; J. H. Fowler, The Life and Letters of Edward Lee Hicks (Bishop of Lincoln, 1910–​1919) (London: Christophers, 1922). 15 ‘On the Duty of England’ (21 January 1900)  in The Guardian (24 January 1900), 119. 16 27 August 1900, published as a leaflet for the Manchester Transvaal Peace Committee, ‘The Duty of England’, cited in Neville, Hicks, 190–​91. 17 The Guardian (14 February 1900), 223. His successor believed that his activities during the Boer War tarnished his later reputation: ‘Kitchin to the outer world was mainly a rather obstinate “little Englander” ’ (Herbert Hensley Henson, Retrospect of an Unimportant Life, 2 vols (London:  Oxford University Press, 1942), i, 151). 18 Morning Leader (29 January 1900), cited in Arthur Davey, The British Pro-​Boers 1877–​1902 (Cape Town: Tafelberg, 1978), 147. 19 G. W. Kitchin, Overcome Evil with Good (Durham: Caldcleugh, 1900) (Issued by the South Africa Conciliation Committee). 20 Overcome Evil with Good, 7. 21 Overcome Evil with Good, 8. 22 See T. F. Taylor, J. Armitage Robinson:  Eccentric, Scholar, and Churchman (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991). 23 J. Armitage Robinson, Holy Ground: Three Sermons on the War in South Africa (London: Macmillan, 1900), 30. 24 Holy Ground, 31. 25 Holy Ground, 32. 26 J. Hammond, H. J. W. Buxton and S. C. Lowry, Three Plain Sermons for the Day of Intercession (London: Skeffington, 1900). 27 Three Plain Sermons, 6. 28 Three Plain Sermons, 8. 29 Three Plain Sermons, 8–​9. 30 George McCall Theal, History of the Boers in South Africa (London: Sonnenschein, 1887), 265. 31 James Bryce, Impressions of South Africa (London: Macmillan, 1897; references to the third edition, 1899), 454. See also Lord Randolph Churchill, Men, Mines and Animals in Southern Africa (London:  Sampson, Low and Marston, 1892; references to the new edition, 1897), 94–​5, cited in M.  van Wyk Smith, ‘The Boers and the Anglo-​Boer War (1899–​1902) in the Twentieth-​Century Moral Imaginary’, Victorian Literature and Culture 31 (2003): 429–​46, 429. 32 Bryce, Impressions of South Africa, 477. 33 See also Keith G. Robbins, ‘Lord Bryce and the First World War’, The Historical Journal 10:2 (1967): 255–​77, esp. 255. Bryce was ambassador to the USA from 1907–​13. On his return he was commissioned by Asquith to produce a report on German atrocities in Belgium. He also spoke out against the Armenian genocide. 34 W. J. Knox-​Little, Sketches and Studies in South Africa (London: Isbister, 1899). 35 Knox-​Little, Sketches and Studies, 201–​3. 36 Knox-​Little, Sketches and Studies, 265–​6. 37 Knox-​Little, Sketches and Studies, 274. 38 The Times (22 Dec 1899). 39 Davey, The British Pro-​Boers, 148. 40 Henrietta Stakesby Lewis, A Message from South Africa to the Christian People of Great Britain (London: Marshall Brothers, 1900), 6, 13. 41 See David Bebbington, ‘Atonement, Sin and Empire, c. 1880–​1914’ in Andrew Porter (ed.), The Imperial Horizons of British Protestant Missions, 1880–​1914 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 14–​31, esp. 19. 42 The Guardian (18 April 1900), 564.

21

The South African War 21 43 Blunden, ‘The Anglican Church during the War’, esp. 284. 44 More generally on imperialism and religion, see Andrew Porter, Religion versus Empire:  British Protestant Missionaries and Overseas Expansion, 1700–​1914 (Manchester:  Manchester University Press, 2004); Brian Stanley, The Bible and the Flag: Protestant Mission and British Imperialism in the 19th and 20th Centuries (Leicester:  Apollos, 1990); and Stewart J. Brown, Providence and Empire, 1815–​1914 (London: Longman, 2008). On South Africa, see also Greg Cuthbertson, ‘Missionary Imperialism and Colonial Warfare: London Missionary Society Attitudes to the South African War, 1899–​1902’, South African Historical Journal 19 (1987): 93–​114. 45 J. A. Hobson, The Psychology of Jingoism (London: G. Richards, 1901), 48. 46 Cited in Davey, The British Pro-​Boers, 146–​53. 47 Vincent Kuitenbrouwer, War of Words:  Dutch Pro-​ Boer Propaganda and the South African War (1899–​1902) (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012), 232. 48 Alfred Marks, The Churches and the South African War ‘Lest we forget’ (London: New Age, 1905). Various examples, including the Bishops of Chichester and Peterborough are cited in Davey, The British Pro-​Boers, 146–​53. 49 5 November 1899 in Holy Ground, 7–​14, here, 14. 50 The Guardian (13 December 1899), 1571–​2. 51 See Bishop Allan Becher Webb, A Short Office of Intercession for Use During the Present War (London:  Skeffington, 1900). This contained Prayers by the Archbishop of Armagh and the Bishop of St Andrews, as well as three new hymns of intercession by S. J. Stone (author of ‘The Church’s One Foundation’), S.  C. Lowry and the Revd Sir G.  R. Fetherston. See also ‘Form of Daily Intercession used in Westminster Abbey’ in Armitage Robinson, Holy Ground, 35–​39. The Canadian bishops appointed the same Sunday as a day of intercession (The Guardian (14 February 1900), 222–​3). See Gordon L. Heath, ‘Sin in the Camp:  The Day of Humble Supplication in the Church of England in Canada in the Early Months of the South African War’, Journal of the Canadian Historical Society 44 (2002): 207–​26; and Gordon L. Heath, A War with a Silver Lining: Canadian Protestant Churches and the South African War, 1899–​1902 (Montreal: McGill-​Queen’s University Press, 2009). 52 Armitage Robinson, Holy Ground, 27. 53 Armitage Robinson, Holy Ground, 28. 54 Armitage Robinson, Holy Ground, 29. 55 J. Hammond, H. J. W. Buxton, S. C. Lowry, Three Plain Sermons, 12–​20. 56 Three Plain Sermons, 13. 57 Three Plain Sermons, 14. 58 Three Plain Sermons, 16. 59 Three Plain Sermons, 23. 60 Three Plain Sermons, 23–​4. 61 Three Plain Sermons, 26. 62 Guardian (17 October 1900), 1455. 63 The line is from Kipling’s well-​known poem, ‘Recessional’, which was originally written for Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897. On poetry and the war, see M.  van Wyk Smith, ‘The Poetry of the War’ in Warwick (ed.), The South African War, 292–​314. 64 See also, The Bishop of Worcester’s letter (1 January 1900), cited in The Guardian (7 February 1900), 183. 65 Armitage Robinson, Holy Ground, 7–​14. 66 Armitage Robinson, Holy Ground, 10. 67 Armitage Robinson, Holy Ground, 11.

22

22  The South African War 68 Armitage Robinson, Holy Ground, 11. 69 Armitage Robinson, ‘Holy Ground’ (14 January 1900) in Holy Ground, 25–​31, here 26. 70 Armitage Robinson, Holy Ground, 28. 71 Brooke Foss Westcott, The Obligations of Empire (London: Macmillan, 1900). 72 Westcott, The Obligations of Empire, 6. 73 Westcott, The Obligations of Empire, 7. 74 Westcott, The Obligations of Empire, 8. 75 Westcott, The Obligations of Empire, 12. 76 Westcott, The Obligations of Empire, 12–​13. 77 The Guardian (14 February 1900), 222–​3. 78 J. Hammond, H. J. W. Buxton, S. C. Lowry, Three Plain Sermons, 9–​10. 79 Three Plain Sermons, 10. 80 Three Plain Sermons, 16–​17. 81 George Venables, A Stinging Rod for a Sinning Nation, Sermon preached in Burgh Castle, Suffolk after reading the Queen’s letter for the army in South Africa and Sufferers by the War (Norwich: Agas H. Goose, 1900). 82 Venables, A Stinging Rod, 7. 83 Venables, A Stinging Rod, 9. 84 Venables, A Stinging Rod, 11. 85 The Guardian (17 October 1900), 1455. 86 See David Newsome, Godliness and Good Learning: Four Studies in a Victorian Ideal (London:  Cassell, 1988); David Newsome, Bishop Westcott and the Platonist Tradition (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1969). See also, Mark D. Chapman, Theology and Society in Three Cities: Berlin, Oxford and Chicago, 1800–​1914 (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2014), ch. 4. 87 On this, see Krebs, ‘ “Last of the Gentlemen’s Wars” ’, 48. 88 J. G. McDonald, Rhodes: A Life (London: P. Allen, 1927), 134. 89 Roland N. Stromberg, Redemption by War:  The Intellectuals and 1914 (Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1982), 198.

23

2 Theology, nationalism, and the First World War Christian ethics and the constraints of politics

Following the collapse of the old communist regimes in the post-​1989 world, it quickly became apparent that a resurgent nationalism filled the power vacuum left by the collapse of the old world order. The precarious bonds of unity appeared to dissolve as rival ‘nationalities’ struggled for dominance within the borders of the new states established in the settlement of two world wars. Although some of the former Soviet Republics and satellite states made a smooth transition to liberal democracy and eventual membership of the European Union, there was nevertheless a significant level of nationalist strife and even civil war in parts of Eastern Europe, most obviously in the former Yugoslavia, as well as in parts of the former Soviet Union, which have still not been resolved. This chapter addresses some of the theological issues raised by such nationalism1 by discussing some examples of theological ethics produced in response to the extremes of nationalist fervour which in part led to the First World War. First it discusses the apparent irreversibility and inevitability of nationalism and the nation it proclaims. Even when this chapter was first written it was hard to agree with Eric Hobsbawm’s optimistic conclusions that the mere fact of historical analysis of nationalism proves that it is past its peak. Admittedly, however, he continues: ‘It would be absurd to claim [that the day of its demise] is already near’.2 What is important to stress is that the very definition of nationalism, nation and nation-​state proves elusive. All the criteria which might be used to define the concept of ‘nation’  –​ such as, for example, a shared language, ethnicity or history –​prove to have frequent exceptions, and are themselves ill-​defined and hazy. This can be demonstrated in Stalin’s relatively uncontroversial definition of a nation as ‘a historically evolved, stable community of language, territory, economic life and psychological make-​up manifested in a community of culture’.3 Nationalism, which in itself may be no more than a ‘principle which holds that the political and national unit should be congruent’,4 nevertheless acts as some sort of constraining condition on all human activity:  if, as Ernest Gellner suggests, ‘the nation is all we’ve got’,5 it would be quite irresponsible to fail to subject nationalism to theological

24

24  The First World War enquiry. Although there may be no ‘objective fact’ of nationhood which could ever satisfy the strict empiricist, there is surely some truth in H. J. Laski’s assertion that ‘the reality of the State’s personality is a compulsion we may not resist’.6 Secondly, I hope to reveal a dilemma in all nationalism: alongside the extraordinary destructiveness of so much nationalism, it nevertheless offers a vital and quasi-​ religious integrating force which theologians cannot afford to ignore. It is obviously frequently true, as many have suggested, that nations are little more than collective fictions based on a pseudo-​ history. For example, Ernest Renan famously emphasized the mythologies involved in nation building noting that ‘historical neglect or indeed falsehood are essential factors in the formation of a nation’.7 Similarly, in a late work, Dean W. R. Inge of St Paul’s Cathedral, claimed that a ‘nation is a society united by a delusion about its ancestry and by a common hatred of its neighbours’.8 More recently Eric Hobsbawm defined the ‘nation’ in terms of the frequently imaginary entity proclaimed by ‘nationalism’.9 Similarly Ernest Gellner regarded ‘nations as a natural, God-​given way of classifying men, as an inherent … political destiny [to be] a myth; nationalism, which sometimes takes pre-​existing cultures and turns them into nations, sometimes invents them, and obliterates pre-​ existing cultures, that is a reality’.10 Nevertheless such national myths, however historically fanciful, exert a very real force in structuring and shaping human activity which can lead to the ultimate sacrifice itself.11 Ernest Barker’s claim that human groups were no more than ‘organising ideas’ seems highly implausible and could never account for the willingness of individuals to die for the sake of the group. The nation proclaimed by nationalism thus wields an intense power over human action. As Thorogood suggests: ‘We are caught in one commitment after another and the nation is there, among the voices, the holder of power, a tyrant-​mother in the home and a question mark placed beside our faith’.12 The nation commands obedience and confers on its members a set of obligations which sometimes over-​rides all others. This sense of duty towards a less than clearly defined end creates nationalism as it is experienced in the modern world, something which has so often proved ‘a plague, a disease which intermittently runs riot in the brood of society, destroying good sense, rationality, tolerance, charity and even humanity itself’,13 but which, at the same time, can provide an overwhelming feeling of solidarity between people, thereby serving as a counter to the alienating tendencies of the modern world by giving individuals a sense of higher purpose and meaning.14 This more positive sense was frequently the characteristic feature of early nationalism, at least until the defeat of Napoleon.15 Finally, I  will suggest ways in which this integrating power, which the nation –​or more properly the idea of the nation as maintained by nationalists –​gives to the individual, can become a force capable of embodying at

25

The First World War 25 least something of the Christian Gospel. I will also suggest that the alternative course, which would keep theology and the church in ahistorical and consequently apolitical purity, however appealing it might seem, lacks the capacity for transforming what the pre-​First World War English Political Pluralists called the ‘group personalities’16 of the social world. Such a course which leaves the world to its own devices can only ever result in tragic consequences.

The force and power of nationalism: J. Allen Baker and Randall Davidson17 The impossibility of idealism: J. Allen Baker The pathos of failing to recognize the extraordinary and inexorable power of nationalism can be well illustrated by looking at the proceedings of The First International Conference of the Churches for Peace and Friendship which took place in Constance in Germany from 1–​5 August, 1914.18 This meeting, which was financed in large part by the philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, was organized by the English Quaker Member of Parliament, J. Allen Baker, who managed to reach Constance, together with seventy-​nine other delegates (of the 153 who had registered), before the German borders had been sealed. Pronounced by Baker (perhaps rather presumptuously) as the Second Council of Constance, the Conference was intended to set in motion the ‘leadership of the Christian Churches in the struggle for justice and peace’.19 In the tense circumstances there was naturally a great deal of apprehension and excitement, a feeling that this was the last chance for peace. As Baker remarked: The situation has changed most ominously since the time when the Conference was planned. But obviously it is right –​perhaps, indeed, it is all the more right –​that emphasis should be given to the eager wish we entertain that the members of the Christian Churches as such may be enabled to make their voices effectively heard at such an hour as this on behalf of what is righteous and true, what is loyal to the suzereignty of peace.20 Later, writing in the Report of the Conference, Baker expressed his belief that we were there because we were called to go. We went with a keen sense of responsibility and of our tasks. And we experienced there together a time in which we were united with one another in the unity of spirit and the bond of peace, and we discovered that from the nations which were now at war with one another, men and women had come together who thought the same as ourselves. That will not be lost and cannot be destroyed.21

26

26  The First World War An English Baptist minister went even further, remarking that it was ‘a miraculous day … the Lord was present himself, he showed us the way and was at work in us’.22 The worthiness of such sentiments is undeniable, yet the prayers were unanswered and the Conference broke down in a mad scramble to leave Germany. What appeared lacking in the optimism of the Conference was a keen sense of reality:  the forces unleashed in the nationalistic struggle between states were far too strong for a Conference which had neither the authority nor the power to resist. Without those two pre-​requisites all such efforts seemed destined to fail. The forlorn failure to pinpoint the possibilities and requirements of the situation, although it may have been the only option given the dire straits of the time, could never have had much more than the effect of witness; and it takes an immense number of witnesses before those who wield national power begin to listen. Eighty international churchmen and women against the combined military complex of Europe was a hopeless imbalance. Realism and the constraints of nationalism: Randall Davidson In distinction to Baker’s idealism, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, recognized the overwhelming strength of the forces which limited the field of manoeuvre in which the Churches could act. ‘The melancholy fact’, he remarked in a sermon preached at the same time as the Constance Conference, ‘the bewildering fact, the disastrous “pity of it”, is that the Government of no one nation, acting for its people’s safety and happiness, can disregard, as things now stand, what is said and planned and done elsewhere’.23 For the church to maintain a prophetic voice which could lead to a transformation of the appalling situation, it would have to recognize and work within the political constraints which necessarily limited the apparent purity of the ethical injunctions of the Gospel:  the forces of nationalism taken to their extreme in war always compromised the absolutes of the Sermon on the Mount. Davidson made this need for compromise clear in a sermon preached later in the War where he drew from one of his favourite texts: ‘Redeeming the time, because the days are evil’ (Ephesians 5:16). The peace of God, he held, was corrupted and distorted by the inherent wickedness of the situation: ‘And verily for us too in this year of grace 1916 the days are evil’.24 Thus, according to Davidson, the first duty of Christians was to understand the situation in order to learn of the possibilities for peace latent in even the most wretched circumstances. Real peace could not be achieved by idealism or by a so-​called pacifism engendered by the mere hatred of strife. Instead, within the concrete situation, however desperate, there had to be a responsibility to discern those inklings of good in the midst of grotesque evil. In turn, this required a discovery of how things which should have been for ‘our weal’ had become the ‘occasion of falling’.25 Thus, alongside all prayer and

27

The First World War 27 witness was another Christian task: the ‘duty to think’, to build structures whereby the hope beyond hope could continue to exist even within the horrors of war. This was naturally a complex task fraught with problems: ‘the difficulty of planning and fashioning new things will be far greater than we realize, and our power of doing it (and do it we must) will depend upon whether, in the midst of war and its dread concomitants, we have given our mind –​yes, mind as well as heart –​to these new and brave resolves’.26 Davidson called for a new vision of Christian hope which might take shape ‘while the guns were still thundering and bombs and submarines were doing their deadly work’, but which nevertheless took account of these realities. Thus unlike some of his contemporaries,27 Davidson preached no mere jingoism, but a far more considered and realistic response to the tragedy of politics: the Christian nations of Europe were at war –​this was the given situation which limited the field for manoeuvre. The march of destruction could not be halted by idealistic witness or constant prayer unless at the same time the realities of situation were taken into account:  compromise with evil was the necessary concomitant to the realization of the Kingdom of God on earth. ‘The responsibility of taking part in a war’, Davidson preached, ‘must always be a fearful one, an action only to be taken when it is called for by our fealty to him who ruleth over all: called for in obedience to a law far higher than any National decree, the following of immutable principles of right and wrong’.28 In short, he went on, all loyalty to the nation was tempered against complacency by the desire for justice and righteousness, by ‘hope and resolve for the future’ in obedience to a higher law.29 Davidson, in distinction to Baker, recognized that political realism accompanied any Christian idealism. In the specific circumstances of the First World War, this meant taking into account the overwhelming  –​and, for Davidson, necessary  –​forces of nationalism as the pre-​conditions of any Christian prophecy. He thus held that the Gospel ideal, if it was to gain a foothold in history, had to work through the powers-​that-​be while not condescending to their arbitrary authority. At the same time, the Gospel had also to be used as a critical principle to ensure that such powers were transformed in a Christian direction. On Davidson’s account, the misuse of nationalism in the direction of the pure aggrandizement of the nation could never be made compatible with the gospel; yet loyalty to the nation, when given moral direction and constant reference to the ‘higher loyalty to the King of Kings’, could be a means to the better good, to the slow painful realization of the Kingdom of God. Davidson’s national policy was thus twofold: first, the Church worked not against, but with and through, the powers which structured society; it had a duty constantly to remind the nation of the Christian duties of righteousness and justice. Only if it maintained contact in this way would its authoritative voice be heard and not relegated to the sectary or idealist’s talking shop. Secondly, and more crucially, however, the constant reminder of higher ends played a role in the critical approach to social structures: nationalism itself

28

28  The First World War was continually brought before the bar of the Gospel, criticized and thereby reformed. Indeed, this was the over-​riding duty of the Church for the future. Davidson’s realism forced a compromise of the Gospel with the structuring forces of nationalism; his idealism in turn forced a rethinking of the principles undergirding the nation, principles which had shown themselves to lead inexorably into international disorder and war. In the future it was the Church’s responsibility to foster ethical institutions to underpin national structures, which in turn might increase the power of the Gospel within the very institutions of society. Thinkers ‘with vision’, according to Davidson, did not restrict themselves to the patriotic demands of the day, but to a future in which Germany and Britain would once again be sharing the same world as partners in the fellowship of nations. The underlying problem, however, was whether nationalism itself could be incorporated into such an international fellowship.

Germany, the Sermon on the Mount, and the First World War Max Weber: the impossibility of the Gospel In Germany there was a similar recognition of an inevitable conflict between the God of love and a world which seemed capable merely of hatred and bloodshed. The dilemma is well represented by the sociologist, Max Weber, who, responding to Gertrud Bäumer in 1916, maintained that if any ideals were to be applied, there had to be a realistic appraisal of the political and social constraints at work in society.30 Against what he called the ‘pharisaic lack of understanding of the tragedy of the historical duties of a nation organised as a power state’ –​displayed, on Weber’s view, by the Swiss –​he claimed that the purity of the ethical demands of the Sermon on the Mount had little direct application to the concrete political situation: [The Gospels] stand in contradiction not just to war –​which they do not especially single out –​but ultimately to each and every law of the social world in so far as these involve a world of culture which is centred on the here and now. … It is only within this system of laws that the current ‘demands of the day’ have any relevance. … In fact whoever is in the world (in the Christian sense) can never experience anything but a conflict between a plethora of values each of which considered in itself seems to be an obligation. He has to choose when to serve one God and when another. But he will always find himself in conflict with one or another of the other gods of this world, and above all a long way from the God of Christianity –​or at least as he declares himself in the Sermon on the Mount.31 Without a proper understanding of this ‘responsibility to history’,32 even the purest of motives could produce the most disastrous of results.

29

The First World War 29 In a famous lecture given just after the First World War,33 Weber, with typical hyperbole, regarded the failure to recognize the limitations of the political situation as little short of a ‘sin against the Holy Spirit’.34 For Weber, good always had to co-​exist with evil, which meant that the human being, inescapably constrained by the contingencies of historical existence, could no longer make a choice between conflicting values based solely on the ethical absolutism of the Sermon on the Mount: The early Christians knew full well that the world is governed by demons and that, whoever has anything to do with politics, and that means using power and violence as means, has to conclude a pact with diabolic powers and for his actions it is not true that good will only come from good and evil from evil, but often the opposite. Whoever cannot see this is politically naive.35 If historical and political reality were brought into consideration, the choice rested between the greater and lesser evil, since ‘the genius, or the demon of politics lives with the God of love’.36 In short, an ethic of responsibility forced a compromise of the absolute, or in Weber’s less prosaic terms, a Faustian pact with the devil. The responsible politician, then, even when guided by the highest ends, had to be fully aware of the constraints of power politics if any of these ends were to gain concrete expression. Though it is often overlooked, and though he pointed to the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount as that of the sect, Weber never failed to show how such an ethics could provide the motivation for political behaviour. Thus he asserted that ‘ “ideas” have often determined the track (just like the pointsman) along which the action has been pushed by the dynamic of interests’.37 Thus, though more pessimistic, Weber has moved in a similar direction to Davidson:  the political forces of nationalism must be taken seriously and only then is there any chance (albeit slim) of their ethical transformation. It would indeed be a blasphemy to ignore them. Otto Baumgarten: the Sermon on the Mount and the First World War From a more traditionally Lutheran direction, Weber’s eldest cousin and close friend,38 Otto Baumgarten (1858–​1934), Professor of Practical Theology at Kiel from 1894–​1926,39 was also passionately involved in theological reflection during the course of the First World War. As editor of Evangelische Freiheit, the leading liberal journal of practical theology, he wrote a monthly series of reflections throughout the course of the War. Rather than expressing a bellicose jingoism, Baumgarten presented a powerful mix of idealism and realism. Always speaking out against simple hatred, he retained a higher hope in justice as the goal of the War. A few weeks after the outbreak of war, for instance, he emphasized the need to ‘steer clear of the current craze to

30

30  The First World War disparage our enemies, to magnify their mistakes, to malign their motives … Let us never forget what we owe in our national culture to our enemies … and let us keep our eyes open for all that is noble in things foreign’.40 This recognition of the underlying similarities between all nations tempered his approach to the War, and although he seldom challenged official policy, he always maintained a sense of proportion and reserve: a longing for peace always relativized his desire for war. He was, for instance, one of the nine theologians who signed the counter-​petition of July 1915 against Reinhold Seeberg’s annexationist ‘Petition of the Intellectuals’.41 Fundamental to his approach was a recognition, similar to Davidson’s and Weber’s, of the possibilities and potentialities even within the appalling situation in which the nation found itself, but equally important was a persistence of hope in a peace settlement –​and here he moved beyond Weber’s pessimism –​in which the relations between the nations would have changed sufficiently to prevent future collapse into war. This tension between hope and reality provides the context for Baumgarten’s exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount, which he viewed as the summary of Jesus’s ethical teaching and which provided the principles for a future hope, rather than offering simple rules for living in the real world. Thus, in an essay published in 1918, he wrote: Peace or no peace, hatred or amity, in so far as these concern self-​ assertion, or the affirmation of honour or justice, do not belong to Jesus’s promise and demands for this time on earth. The Sermon on the Mount, which on principle excludes this self-​assertion, is no ethical law for relations with the world, for government and subjects. It is purely a law for regulating those who relate to one another as children of God.42 While maintaining a Lutheran distinction between idealism and realism, and affirming the need to ‘obey reality’, he also retained a sense of hope that was to provide the impetus for the ethicization of the forces of nationalism and power politics. Thus against what he considered the ideological one-​ sidedness of both the pan-​Germans and the pacifists, he looked for an at least partial reconciliation between the ethics of love exemplified by the Sermon on the Mount and the constraints of power politics. This would provide the most realistic means for reaching a lasting peace. In an earlier and more extended lecture on similar themes, given in 1915,43 Baumgarten related the Sermon on the Mount to the circumstances of the War, maintaining that ‘the demands of national ethics and the demands of the Sermon on the Mount are quite divergent. … Jesus placed his sayings on a quite different basis from that on which our national demands rest’. He spoke merely about the peace of the community of the disciples and ‘simply did not consider those things which are occupying us at the moment. He had no thoughts about the circumstances in which we live, about the possibilities and necessities of national and international co-​existence’.44

31

The First World War 31 Baumgarten felt that Jesus was concerned fundamentally with the relationships between disciples rather than with any set of legal codes: ‘All those things like justice and state, honour and society, nation and the relationship between nations are simply not within the ambit of his thought’.45 Jesus thus preached a utopia which had little connection to the complex network of political and social relationships of the modern human being. The realities of national life and the demands of the Sermon on the Mount were quite different elements of ethical life and could not be confused. Thus for Christians to tackle political problems required a ‘steel-​hard sense of reality’ such as Bismarck had possessed. In a short book on politics and morals published in 1916, Baumgarten analysed the role of political realism. The politician, he claimed, had to resemble Bismarck, Treitschke and Machiavelli in his realism before he can make any attempt to inject an ethical aspect into politics.46 In this there is a profound tension in Baumgarten’s thought: on the one hand, the demands of the Sermon on the Mount, as the abiding substance of Christianity which persists despite all historical criticism, appeared suitable only for a higher world where nothing stood between the soul and its God. Only in such a world would it be possible for that love between individual souls to resemble divine love. On the other hand, the Christian was forced to come to ethical decisions within the concrete historical world. It might appear at first sight that, by wrenching the Sermon on the Mount from any application to concrete reality, Baumgarten unwittingly rendered it inapplicable to any situation. Yet he fought against such a conclusion, claiming instead that the ‘longing for a complete fulfilment of the personality, in inner relationship to fellow human beings solely as children of God and fellow citizens of the Kingdom of God will certainly work back on our earthly human relationships’.47 For Baumgarten, the goal of ethical development was the attainment (in the jargon of the age) of full human personality (Persönlichkeit), that is, a re-​ordering of relationships between persons so that each was treated as a child of God. Thus as a higher motivation worked on the seemingly intractable realities of the concrete political situation through a re-​ordering of relationships, human beings would gradually begin to alter these realities. Baumgarten felt that such a higher motivation could provide the foundations for a lasting peace agreement: instead of hatred and racist dehumanizations of the enemy, he maintained a vision of a universality and common humanity which could help direct, even if only to some small degree, the shape of the final settlement. His obvious admiration for those who fully understood the realities of politics also forced him into an attempt at a practical ethical solution, which, although cautious, was always within the bounds of possibility.48 Similarly, his understanding of all human beings as children of God served to relativize the conditions shaping life (Lebensordnungen), from the self-​aggrandizement of the nation, to the hatred of the enemy.49 Yet, at the same time, he paid vigorous attention to these factual conditions which themselves possessed something equivalent to human personality.

32

32  The First World War They were real influences and exerted real power and thus had to be used as best they could to further the ethical ideal. In summarising his position, in his book on politics and morals, Baumgarten was well able to recognize its inherent tensions: You will claim that my reflections lead to an unbearable dilemma: I represent the independent morals of political life and of the state, and the strength of the duty towards them for all who are called to politics. I also represent the sacred duty of all those who in some way participate in the life of the state not merely sacrificially and patiently. And yet again I fight the harnessing of the whole of our life in the machinery of the state, against public service as the highest earthly end, since I  keep in sight a supranational personality as a higher end of existence. But is this insoluble dilemma, which the system-​builders find so intolerable, not the tragic law of our earthly competence? There have been attempts to set aside this tension by pointing to political activity in its widest sense as an essential means in the formation of the personality, which can only come to fruition in the material world, in the conflict with the destructive, in devotion to the whole. But reality shows us the constant opposition of both worlds, precisely also in Bismarck’s tragic life. Here it is possible to reach an understanding of why Jesus built up his inner world completely without connections to the spheres of politics, justice and society. One cannot serve two masters without sacrificing something essential in one or the other. But it will seem that just such a sacrifice is demanded of us. In any case it is a higher life that we face which struggles in both worlds, even when it has not reached an inner unity, than a life which is enclosed and unified in the one world or the other. … In the persistent tensions and conflicting duties each person with his capacities and inner strength strives for a unity of his duties to the state or as a citizen with his own inner duties to the personality. … It is sufficient that we grow beyond the pettiness and constrictions of a purely private life and in all our co-​ operation with the nation state that we do not lose heart and longing for a world of unbroken, eternal values.50 Baumgarten is thus making his Lutheran  –​and Kantian  –​principle of tension, of a persistent ‘wandering between two worlds’, into a principle to ensure continued political action in the concrete historical world guided by higher motivation and yet recognizing the constraints of the situation. Indeed without a continued tension between the two worlds there will be mere sectarian escape which allows the world to go on untouched by any higher ends. In revealing the tension, revealed in the attempt to connect the Sermon on the Mount to the world, Baumgarten, it might be suggested, has gone at least some way towards revealing the pain and the tragedy of the Christian situation. Indeed, however tempting it might be to escape the painful consequences of Baumgarten’s dilemma of conflicting duties, his

33

The First World War 33 problem, most clearly contained in Weber’s question in his wartime lecture on ‘Science as a Vocation’, ‘Which of the warring Gods are we to serve?’,51 has to be addressed in any system of Christian ethics. Baumgarten’s tension, which suggests a both/​and rather than either/​or provides at least the basis for a possible answer. The failure of the Weimar constitution (a political settlement warmly welcomed by Baumgarten together with many other liberal-​minded theologians including Ernst Troeltsch) was symptomatic of a move away in two divergent directions from the ethics of constructive tension:  on the one hand, many politicians moved towards a revitalized secular nationalism untouched by any universalist or humanist ends, and on the other hand, theology moved towards the radical sectarianism of gospel purism. On this model, the Sermon on the Mount became so radically different from the world that it could gain no political expression. Baumgarten’s tension could easily dissolve into a total dualism, as is apparent in Rudolf Bultmann’s claim, made six years after the end of First World War, that ‘[the] Sermon on the Mount demands the impossible and to make it into the norm for activity in the world is not only to do something futile but to deny its character as a skandalon’.52 This view of the impossibility of the concrete application of the Sermon on the Mount, where the Gospel message becomes ‘wholly other’, can have the potentially disastrous result, as Baumgarten predicted, that the Lebensordnungen take on a power of their own untouched by Christian ethics; they become the quasi-​religious structures within which the individual develops into a personality, where aimless individualism is fully absorbed into a higher motivation. Baumgarten’s lament of 1927 in response to the theological and political movements of contemporary Germany makes particularly painful reading.53 Thus, in a situation where the Sermon on the Mount is wholly removed from concrete reality and cannot even motivate action in a totally corrupted world, there is little choice for human beings but to find some alternative end to act as a goal of human longing. With its utterly critical stance, much of the post-​First World War dialectical theology seems to have been methodologically unable to legitimize any political structures. But where the development of the individual into a fully Christian personality requires a complete escape from social and political conditions, it is hardly surprising that as long as one remains within the world of history and change, quasi-​religious integrating structures untouched by Christian ethics should become the motivating powers for human activity. It might be suggested that sectarianism or idolatry seem the only alternatives. Consequently, by failing to find a legitimate political expression for Christian ethics, however compromised that might inevitably be, theology was in part responsible for allowing the nation itself to take over the integrating function of religion. Where Christianity could gain no political expression, it was left for the nation, the finite absolute, itself bolstered by centuries of the authoritarian ideology of the Divine Right of rulers, to give

34

34  The First World War liberation to human beings, providing them with a sense of meaning and a higher purpose. In a provocative analysis, the Israeli historian, Uriel Tal claimed that this absence of a political expression of Christianity was a tendency inherent in the logic of theology itself: The Christian doctrine of original sin and the miraculous status of Jesus as the Redeemer is irrational and anti-​religious, for it makes man a passive object caught in the coils of sin and unable to perform the commandments; man is nailed down by his finitude and can only rise through the agency of indefectible grace, that is, by virtue of faith in Jesus the Messiah,  –​and this can only lead to a stultification of his moral sense.54 All concrete expressions of morality, however closely they might express the ideals of the Sermon on the Mount, are thus annihilated by the doctrine of the fall. In such a situation something finite could so easily become a substitute for the ethical absolute; human beings would thus find their ultimate meaning in the products of the world, not in the purposes of God. This was clearly demonstrated in the so-​called ‘ideas of 1914’.

The ‘ideas of 1914’: the religious function of the Nation The ease with which such a secular goal functioned as a higher end was apparent in the overwhelming feeling of national belonging which accompanied the outbreak of war in August 1914. Large numbers of preachers recognized the liberating power of nationalism, particularly as it appeared in the critical situation of war, as all selfish individualism was sublimated in submission to the higher good of the nation.55 Baumgarten, for instance, felt that the sense of excitement and duty surrounding the August days had succeeded in bringing the working classes behind the designs of the nation as nothing had done previously.56 Similarly, Ernst Troeltsch suggested in an essay on the so-​called ‘ideas of 1914’57 that the ‘enormous significance of August 1914’ was that ‘under the influence of danger it pressed the whole nation together into an inner unity, such as had never before existed. … The effect of August on the future is the disappearance of the abstract, artificial and divided into an organic living unity both in the individual and in the whole nation’.58 The more extreme nationalistic preachers, in particular Reinhold Seeberg, went further, seeing 1914 as a religious rebirth of the German nation in conscious reaction to the principles of 1789.59 This integration of the individual within something greater was frequently called the ‘German Idea of Freedom’, in distinction to the aimless individualism which was perceived to characterize the freedom experienced in the nations of Western Europe.

35

The First World War 35 In his analysis of German freedom, Troeltsch held that it was ‘never purely political. It will always remain tied up with the idealistic notion of duty and the Romantic idea of individuality’.60 Similarly, Hermann Cohen, the Jewish Marburg neo-​Kantian philosopher, saw the renewed sense of duty inaugurated by the war as capable of overcoming the antinomy of freedom and necessity, as individual freedom was embedded in the greater whole provided by the nation.61 The First World War thus helped overcome the sense of social disintegration which many had been experienced in Wilhelmine Germany. As the influential philosopher Max Scheler noted in a pamphlet of 1915: ‘In this war it was generally felt that a special national destiny reached into everyone’s hearts, the greatest and the smallest alike’.62 This sense of national integration, however, was not limited to Germany. Writing in The Hibbert Journal in 1915 the internationalist philosopher Count Hermann von Keyserling remarked somewhat ecstatically: We are all fighting for a better state of experience, Russia has refused drink. … France is pulling herself together. … Germany is completing her fusion into unity, breaking up from within those demarcations of caste and calling which have handicapped so much her free evolution.63 Through the catalyst of war the nation provided, in Roland Stromberg’s striking phrase, the ‘antidote to anomie’.64 The alienating powers of capitalism and materialism, which were almost universally recognized as destructive to human personality, seemed to have been overcome in a renewed sense of purpose. Indeed throughout Europe there was a perception of the extraordinary unifying and liberating power of nationalism in the crisis of war. Some years before Ernest Renan had emphasized the extraordinary spiritual power exerted by the nation on the individual. He defined the ‘nation’ in terms of ‘a soul, a spiritual principle’65 which was constructed out of the desire of individuals to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the community. Basic to Renan’s account is not so much the nation as an objective entity, but the nation as the goal of longing, as that for which individuals are prepared to die which proved all to true in 1914. Although in hindsight it might be difficult to see the expression of nationalism in 1914 in a positive light, it cannot be denied that the feeling of solidarity engendered at the outbreak of the war integrated the mass of the population in many European countries behind a higher –​even if ultimately destructive –​cause. Indeed, nationalism gave a sense of meaning and was even able to commandeer the forces of an impotent religion and occasionally to adopt its language. As the most prominent theologian of the time Adolf von Harnack recognized: in place of individual life … there is something ideal such as one’s country’s life or a great good to be won for all of humankind. … This high-​ spirited disposition, ready to embrace life and death equally, is very

36

36  The First World War closely akin to religion. … People who had neglected their inner life [are now] gaining a new relation to their brothers and an awareness of the transcendent meaning of their lives.66 It is this virtually religious power of nationalism,67 which can be so easily harnessed by the forces of destruction, that makes the ideas of 1914 so frightening and yet so relevant in the contemporary world:  for this very reason ‘the failed attempt of 1914, overlooked and misunderstood as it has been, should engage our interest’.68 It proved particularly potent through the crisis which surrounded the breakdown of Soviet power in the 1990s. As Václav Havel wrote in 1990, as the last president of Czechoslovakia: ‘Like love, hatred is ultimately an expression of longing for the absolute, albeit an expression that has become tragically inverted’.69 The ‘ideas of 1914’, against which Karl Barth so vigorously reacted,70 were thus an expression, not so much of the accommodation of liberal theology to the power-​mongering of the nation-​state, as of its failure to find legitimate structures through which Christianity might gain social and political expression. The contemporary theological relevance of 1914 thus rests in the renewed quest for a set of social and political structures which do not integrate individuals within the finite absolute of the nation-​state, but within a political form which gives expression, within the limits of historical possibility, to the universals of Christian ethics. In a sermon preached on the day of the Armistice in 1918, Randall Davidson recognized this, calling for a means whereby the positive integrating effects experienced in war might continue in the future yet removed of their particularist nationalistic overtones. For Davidson, there had to be a means whereby the Gospel could utilize the positive possibilities inherent in nationalism without thereby succumbing to the temptations of a false absolute: Ours is indeed a great and living hope for our own and other lands. Before the war began we in England were in peril of great sunderings into sectional life, and possibly even sectional strife. The war, which perforce cut rudely across our ordinary life and suspended countless things for good and ill, has obliterated many a barrier and sundering line, and men who had little in common have learned to know and understand one another as never before. Is that experience to be barren of fruit?71 The tragedy for theology after the First World War, however, was its failure to grasp the responsibilities of reconstruction and to take upon itself the task of formulating realistic political structures which fulfilled similar integrating functions to the nationalism engendered by war, but instead founded on Christian ethics. A Christian ethic of responsibility implies that despite sin, despite the obvious corruption of all human structures, it must be possible to be a Christian in the world, as Davidson, Weber and Baumgarten saw in their different ways. Thus alongside those who could find little application for the

37

The First World War 37 ethical ideal of the Sermon on the Mount in the situation of war, and more importantly in the reconstruction after the war, were those who attempted to provide a Christian basis for a lasting peace settlement: there had to be ways of ordering society which could attract the same level of political commitment and devotion as the nation-​state, but which were founded on a Christian universalism, on the Christian hope of the Kingdom of God.

Finding a ‘new sociological body’ Such an attitude, which is what Weber meant by ‘responsibility to history’, characterizes the distinctive approach to post-​war reconstruction adopted by Ernst Troeltsch, who, at the end of Der Historismus und seine Probleme, published only a few months before his death, recognized the need for reshaping social structures in accord with higher universal ends. It was necessary, on his account, to create a ‘new sociological body for the ideological content, and to enliven the sociological body with a new and fresh spirituality, a new combination, adaptation and reconstruction of the great historical powers’. Naturally this carried with it a considerable element of risk: there was no way of proving how it should be done, nor of guaranteeing the success of any project. Yet in the situation of reconstruction the need to reshape political structures was especially pressing. Thus, according to Troeltsch, even though any settlement had to recognize the finitude of all human constructions and would thereby be something of a compromise, at the same time it had to be the best attempt at an expression of the Christian ideal. This meant, as he put it in a memorable phrase, ‘overcoming history through history and preparing the foundations for the new creation’.72 The confines of history could thus only be overcome once its limitations and capacities were recognized, and in turn they would be gradually reformed and reshaped.73 The need to take account of the realities of the situation in any attempt at ethical reconstruction was similarly recognized by Harnack in an article written in 1918. True pacifism, he believed, rested in the ability to see a way out of the chaos of the situation, not by ignoring it but by fully accepting its constraints.74 This meant the need to find a lasting sociological expression for Christian ethics. The foundation of the republic thus had to be accompanied by a shared ethical commitment to that very republic: ‘We have the republic’, he wrote, ‘we must do everything to ensure that it is established on an objective foundation’.75 That meant ensuring that the Weimar Republic, as an expression of the political solution best suited for the maintenance of future peace in the fellowship of nations, had to establish itself by building on the possibilities and potentialities of history.

Towards an ethics of nationalism Although this discussion of ethics in the First World War might seem some way removed from the contemporary situation, many of the problems of

38

38  The First World War modern Europe and, by the twenty-​first century, in many other parts of the world as well, bear more than a passing resemblance. This chapter has tried to show that a Christian ethics which stands any chance of realization in the concrete historical world is forced by the facts and constraints of history to make compromises with political structures. It cannot ignore them but must take them seriously if there is to be any transformation of society: in this, there is an evident fusing of the earthly and heavenly cities, even though no such fusion can ever be absolute and complete. The tension, as was so evident in Baumgarten, must be retained, and yet, without some form of compromise, it can so easily lead to a complete dualism as happened in the 1920s. To emphasize this creative tension and the need for compromise is to say little more than that Christian love, if it is to exist in the world and gain a foothold in historical reality, requires real social and political structures to make it happen in practice. Such structures, however, cannot exist in some ahistorical purity, but must themselves be finite and limited, since, as Weber put it rather graphically, ‘the genius, or the demon of politics lives with the God of love’.76 Here there are obvious parallels to Augustine for whom there always remained a tension between the city of God and the earthly city:  ‘On earth, these two cities are linked and fused together, only to be separated at the Last Judgement’.77 Accepting this fundamentally Augustinian tension means that the political theologian requires not merely an understanding of the ethical absolutes of the Gospel, but also an understanding of the constraints of social, political, and historical reality. In this final section I will set out some suggestions for formulating a ‘responsible’ ethics of nationalism making use of this method of constructive tension. My intention is neither to absolutize the nation nor to ignore it, but to take it seriously as perhaps the most powerful ingredient of contemporary politics. Until very recently it might have seemed to many that the European nation-​state, with its concomitant nationalism, was withering away in the supranational institutions of the European community or the Warsaw Pact. This cannot be the case today. Nationalism is on the rise throughout Europe, most obviously in the states of the former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, as the artificial union imposed by the unitary state collapses into chaos, but also in the countries of Western Europe as is emphasized by the increasing popularity of parties of the nationalist right in France and Italy and in many of the new accession countries. Within this process the Churches have frequently acted as catalysts for reforging national identity, as they are often intimately bound up with the old hatreds enshrined in nationalistic pseudo-​history.78 In short, whether we like it or not, nationalism is with us.79 In such a situation it seems inevitable that the Christian task must be to help establish a new mentality whereby nationalism is not so much abolished (a task which would prove impossible given the constraints of contemporary politics) but is transformed into a Christianized nationalism, a nationalism which takes account of higher ends beyond those of the nation.

39

The First World War 39 In the first of the seven maxims he laid down for the survival of the Weimar Republic, Harnack recognized this only too clearly: ‘No chauvinism and no rootless cosmopolitanism, but German Spirit and the horizon of humanity’.80 In this, Harnack was merely following Augustine. Something similar was recognized by the English theologian and political theorist J. N. Figgis in a book on Augustine’s politics written during the First World War (though published posthumously): [Augustine] hazards the conjecture (Civ. Dei III.10 and IV.3,15) that the world would be most happily governed if it consisted, not of a few great aggregations secured by wars of conquest, with their accompaniments of despotism and tyrannic rule, but of a society of small states living together in amity, not transgressing each other’s limits, unbroken by jealousies. In other words, he favoured a League of Nations.81 The relativizing of the claims of the nation in terms of the greater perspective of humanity does not deny some degree of national aspiration but seeks to limit it and to put it into perspective. Thus, writing in 1979, the German historian Theodor Schieder recognized that we ‘cannot depart from the utopian expectation that the national differences of the European peoples might … disappear at some point. Instead they are to remain and serve as the historical basis of European solidarity’. European solidarity, he felt, was the expression of a mutual recognition of diversity.82 Writing as a former Nazi he was all too aware of the alternative. On such an understanding, the problem is to create institutions which do not deny the diversity of the historical reality and identity of nations but which provide for a shared perception of a higher unity, not apart from, but within the nation. The longings for and devotion to the nation are to be transformed through devotion to the nation by ensuring that the nation itself always points towards something higher. This higher end is given expression only in the mutual discourse between the nations, a discourse which is not rooted in the nations themselves but in a higher underlying unity established on a common bond of humanity. This amounts to an almost Hegelian transformation of national structures. Schieder writes:  ‘We have to succeed in developing the forms whereby national diversity might be sublimated (aufgehoben) in the European community, and that is in the Hegelian sense of overcoming and preserving’.83 In turn, this could happen only if a safeguard was built into the very structures of the nation to prevent its deification: at the heart of each national consciousness there had to be a recognition of the finitude of all nations. Schieder’s important observation is that along with new institutions there has to be a concomitant mentality among the population. A similar point had been made by Count Keyserling during the First World War: ‘Institutions as such are nothing; the most perfect imaginable are mere outward crusts apt to be exploded by the first outbreak of passion, if they do not express a corresponding degree of spiritual understanding’.84 The challenge facing

40

40  The First World War contemporary Christianity, which, in the context of the situation after the collapse of communism as well as the dismemberment of the Middle East, is even more urgent, is to help create institutions which are able to express this ‘spiritual understanding’, capable of attracting devotion and duty towards a higher end than that of the nation, yet at the same time expressed through the constraints of the nation.85 The recognition of the finitude of all nations, however, does not need to be necessarily destabilising when bolstered by a new mentality. That liberating aspect of the quasi-​religious devotion to the nation which was so apparent in the outbreak of the First World War can and perhaps ought to be retained, but –​and again the parallels with Augustine are evident86 –​through new structures channelled into devotion to a higher unity founded on an infinite absolute beyond the finite absolute of any nation. In turn, devotion to this higher absolute enshrined in the structures of the nation, summarized perhaps in the term ‘openness to the world’, creates a new understanding of one’s own national identity. ‘All encompassing dogmatic knowledge’, in Karl Jaspers’ phrase, is replaced by critical openness. The challenge of the nation is thus to create and preserve structures to maintain such openness.87 An example can be taken from the struggle for Algerian nationhood, where Frantz Fanon gave perhaps one of the best attempts to combine the feeling of national identity with what he called ‘the encouragement of universalising values’. He went on:  ‘It is at the heart of national consciousness that international consciousness lives and grows. And this two-​fold emerging is ultimately the source of all culture’.88 The emphasis is thus on a concrete universal expressed through the particularity of the nation-​state, which moves naturally towards an ethics of human rights enshrined in popular political and national institutions. As Harnack noted in his sixth maxim:  ‘Democracy needs strength’.89 This need for popularly acknowledged institutions is maintained in a collection of speeches by the German Social-​Democrat politician, Peter Glotz (1939–​ 2005), who made the point that ‘we need not merely a national law which guarantees human rights, but also institutions which can enforce them’.90 That means the creation of national and international institutions which are able to ensure that ‘living foreigners are more important than our own dead’.91 For Glotz the choice is clear:  ‘either progress into a European structure in which national individualities remain, but not as states which measure themselves and desire to know who is the stronger or weaker; or a return to a nationalist Europe of the inter-​war period’.92 Writing at the end of the 1980s Glotz held that the key political task was to create viable and popular institutions which might serve to integrate the individual, not within an aggressive nationalistic state, but within a form of nation-​state in which nationalisms are relativized rather than annihilated.93 For Christians, such relativization obviously takes place before an absolute God who alone is worthy of complete commitment. As Harnack noted in his seventh maxim: without fear of God there could be no future.94

41

The First World War 41 The challenge to the European Union is to shape a European mentality within each nation by creating national structures which command dutiful obedience and yet point in an ecumenical direction, to the unity achieved through an appreciative acknowledgement of diversity which serves to relativize any finite absolute.95 The ultimate goal is that of the perpetual peace of the heavenly kingdom. As Keyserling wrote in 1915: If events have led all dreams of pacifists ad absurdem, this is due to the fact that men are not spiritually ready for permanent peace; some day they may become so. The higher understanding acquired will inevitably express itself, sooner or later, on the outer plane: some day righteousness will become as normal to men as contention is now. Then treaties will inevitably be respected.96 It is perhaps the duty of theologians to work for this higher understanding where international treaties which strive towards lasting peace and justice are respected as institutions of love, which may mean, in some sense, learning to love the institution, which seems a very long way from the approach to the European Union in many parts of Europe including the United Kingdom.

Conclusion It is far too easy to neglect this responsibility to historical reality: yet, without a permeation of political institutions by Christian ethics, even though it can never be complete and absolute, such institutions can quickly become objects of a devotion which replaces the integrating role of Christianity yet guided by no higher end. Again Augustine provides the backdrop for such thinking. A reliance on a false absolute is understood as the perverted imitation of God:  ‘For pride hates a fellowship of equality under God, and seeks to impose its own dominion on fellow men, in place of God’s rule. This means that it hates the just peace of God, and loves its own peace of injustice’.97 Though it is true that in any attempt to find structures adequate to represent Christian ethics there will be a necessary compromise, the alternative course, which leads to the possibility of ethical irrelevance and impotence, is in the long run far more destructive. Perhaps latent within Christianity is a fear of forces beyond human control which nevertheless hold power and dominion over us:  the constant temptation is to escape from their clutches. But to escape from such forces into an ecclesial purity is nothing more than a futile attempt to escape from human finitude and historical conditioning, an expression of the human desire to be like the angels. Janet Martin Soskice’s striking question is thus pertinent: ‘If God did not despise and despair of the limitations of the human condition, why should we?’98 Thus, in the full recognition of the constraints of history, the theologian’s vocation is the constructive and critical attempt to reshape and reform history around higher ends: this means, in relation to nationalism, universalizing the claims

42

42  The First World War of the nation while making full use of its institutions without at the same time making the impossible demand of denying nationhood altogether.99 Indeed, had there been more people, theologians and church leaders among them, prepared to immerse themselves fully within the real world, dirtying their hands in the ugly task of reconstruction while fully aware of their limitations and the constraints of politics, one might conjecture that the course of European history after the First World War would have proved far less tragic. As Harnack wrote in the aftermath of the War: ‘Germany is now at the end of its strength, as the devaluation of its currency reveals. It cannot go any further! What Europe now has to do, it does not have to do merely for Germany, but for itself, so that it does not perish’.100 The tragedy was that Europe failed to recognize this until it was too late.

Notes 1 The literature on nationalism is legion. A  good selection is included in John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (eds), Nationalism (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1994). 2 E. J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 192. 3 Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National and Colonial Question (London:  Lawrence & Wishart, 1936), 8, cited in Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780, 5. 4 Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), 1. 5 Bernard Thorogood, The Flag and The Cross. National Limits and Church Universal (London: SCM Press, 1988), 32. 6 H. J. Laski, Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1917), 4. 7 Ernest Renan, Qu’est-​ce qu’une nation?:  conférence faite en Sorbonne, le 11 mars 1882 (Paris: Calmann Lévy, 1882), 7–​8. 8 W. R. Inge, ‘The Curse of War’ in The End of an Age:  and Other Essays (London: Putnam, 1948), 109–​46, here 127. 9 Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism, 9–​13. 10 Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, 1. 11 Ernest Barker, Political Thought in England 1848–​ 1914 (London:  Oxford University Press, 1928), 153. 12 Thorogood, The Flag and The Cross, 4. 13 The Flag and The Cross, 4. 14 On this point, see Conor Cruise O’Brien’s analysis of American nationalism: God’s Land:  Reflections on Religion and Nationalism (Cambridge, Mass and London: Harvard University Press, 1988), ch. 1. 15 See, for instance, F. W. Graf, ‘Schmerz der Moderne, Wille zur Ganzheit. Protestantismus 1914 –​und was davon geblieben ist’, Lutherische Monatshefte 10 (1989): 458–​63, esp. 459. 16 On this, see David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, second edition (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1994), ch. 4. 17 On the English Church and the First World War, see Alan Wilkinson, The Church of England and the First World War (London: SPCK, 1978). On the reaction of British theologians see the wide-​ranging essay by Charles E. Bailey, ‘The British Protestant Theologians in the First World War:  Germanophobia Unleashed’, Harvard Theological Review 77 2 (1984): 195–​221.

43

The First World War 43 18 On this, see Karl-​ Christoph Epting, ‘Die erste internationale Konferenz der Kirchen für Frieden und Freundschaft in Konstanz 1914’, Ökumenische Rundschau 34 (1986): 7–​25. 19 Elizabeth Balmer Baker and P. J.  Noel Baker, J. Allen Baker MP. A  Memoir (London: The Swarthmore Press, 1927), 206. 20 Baker and Baker, J. Allen Baker, 219. 21 The Churches and International Friendship, Report of Conferences held at Constance 1914 (London and New  York:  World Alliance of Churches for Promoting International Friendship, 1914), 52. 22 Cited in Epting, ‘Die erste internationale Konferenz’, 19. 23 Randall Thomas Davidson, ‘The Eve of a Great War’ in The Testing of a Nation (London: Macmillan, 1919), 8. 24 ‘Redeeming the Time’ in The Testing of a Nation, 66. 25 ‘Redeeming the Time’, 69. 26 ‘Redeeming the Time’, 74. 27 Such accusations have frequently been levelled against Arthur Foley Winnington Ingram, although these have recently been questioned: see Stuart Bell, ‘Malign or Maligned?  –​Arthur Winnington-​ Ingram, Bishop of London, in the First World War’, Zeitschrift für neuere Theologiegeschichte /​Journal for the History of Modern Theology 20 (2013):  117–​ 33. See also Stuart Mews, ‘Spiritual Mobilization in the First World War’, Theology 74 (1971): 258–​64. 28 ‘Clouds and Righteousness’ in The Testing of a Nation, 87–​8. 29 ‘Clouds and Righteousness’, 91. Davidson expressed a vision of hope in ‘The Armistice’ in The Testing of a Nation, 155–​64. 30 Max Weber, ‘Zwischen zwei Gesetzen’ in Gesammelte Politische Schriften, J. Winckelmann (ed.) (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, third edition, 1971), 142–​5. 31 ‘Zwischen zwei Gesetzen’, 145. All translations are my own. 32 ‘Zwischen zwei Gesetzen’, 142. 33 Max Weber, ‘Politik als Beruf’ in Gesammelte Politische Schriften, 505–​62. 34 ‘Politik als Beruf’, 547. 35 ‘Politik als Beruf’, 554. 36 ‘Politik als Beruf’, 557. 37 Max Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie, 3 vols, sixth edition (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1972), i, 252. 38 On the relationship between Baumgarten and Weber, see F. W. Graf, ‘Max Weber und die protestantische Theologie seiner Zeit’, Zeitschrift für Religion und Geistesgeschichte 40 (1987): 122‒47, esp. 126–​9. 39 On Otto Baumgarten see Meine Lebensgeschichte (Tübingen:  J. C.  B. Mohr, 1929) and Hasko von Bassi, Otto Baumgarten. Ein ‘moderner Theologe’ im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik (Frankfurt am Main and New York: P. Lang, 1988). Most important in relation to this essay is Günter Brakelmann, Krieg und Gewissen. Otto Baumgarten als Politiker und Theologe im ersten Weltkrieg (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) and W. Steck (ed.), Otto Baumgarten. Studien zu Leben und Werk (Neumünster: K. Wachholtz, 1986). On the role of German liberal Churchmen in the First World War see esp. Frank J. Gordon, ‘Liberal German Churchmen and the First World War’, German Studies Review 41 (1981): 39–​62, and more comprehensively, Charles E. Bailey, ‘Gott mit Uns: Germany’s Protestant Theologians in the First World War’, PhD thesis (University of Virginia, 1978). 40 Otto Baumgarten, ‘Gottes Gerechtigkeit’, Evangelische Freiheit 14 (1914): 329–​ 35, cited in Gordon, ‘Liberal German Churchmen’, 44. 41 See Brakelmann, Baumgarten, 43, 59. See also Günter Brakelmann, Protestantische Kriegstheologie im ersten Weltkrieg. Reinhold Seeberg als Theologe des deutschen Imperialismus (Bielefeld: Luther-​Verlag, 1974), 16–​72;

44

44  The First World War and F. W. Graf and Klaus Tanner, ‘Reinhold Seeberg’ in F.W. Graf (ed.), Profile des neuzeitlichen Protestantismus, 3 vols (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1990–​93), ii, part 2, 354–​97, 367. 42 Otto Baumgarten, ‘Aufgabe und Schwierigkeiten unserer Predigt bei herannahendem Frieden’, Evangelische Freiheit 18 (1918): 9. 43 Otto Baumgarten, Der Krieg und die Bergpredigt (Speech given in Berlin on 10 May 1915) (Berlin: Carl Heymann, 1915). 44 Der Krieg und die Bergpredigt, 12, 13. 45 Der Krieg und die Bergpredigt, 14. 46 In Otto Baumgarten, Politik und Moral (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1916). There is a close similarity here with Max Weber’s later writing. See ‘Politik als Beruf’, 561. 47 Der Krieg und die Bergpredigt, 19. 48 On this, see Brakelmann, Baumgarten, 123. 49 See Der Krieg und die Bergpredigt, 24. 50 Politik und Moral, 178–​9. 51 Max Weber, ‘Wissenschaft als Beruf’ in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, fourth edition, J. Winckelmann (ed.) (Tübingen:  J. C.  B. Mohr, 1973), 582–​613, here 605. 52 Rudolf Bultmann, ‘Die liberale Theologie und die jüngste theologische Bewegung’ in Glauben und Verstehen I, fourth edition (Tübingen:  J. C.  B. Mohr, 1964), 1‒25, here 16–​77. English translation by L. P. Smith: ‘Liberal Theology and the Latest Theological Movement’ in Faith and Understanding, R.W. Funk (ed.) (London: SCM, 1969), 28–​52, here 44. 53 Otto Baumgarten, Geistige und sittliche Wirkungen des Krieges in Deutschland (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-​Anstalt, 1927), 1–​88, esp. 69ff. 54 Uriel Tal, Christians and Jews in Germany: Religion, Politics and Ideology in the Second Reich, 1870–​1914 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975), 219. 55 There are many accounts of German preaching during the First World War. See, for example, W. Pressel, Die Kriegspredigt 1914–​18 in der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands (Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967); Arlie J. Hoover, God, Germany and Britain in the Great War: a Study in Clerical Nationalism (New York: Praeger, 1989); and The Gospel of Nationalism. German Patriotic Preaching from Napoleon to Versailles (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1986), esp. 82. 56 See Brakelmann, Baumgarten, 80. 57 Ernst Troeltsch, ‘Die Ideen von 1914’ in Deutscher Geist und Westeuropa. Gesammelte kulturphilosophische Aufsätze und Reden (1925), Hans Baron (ed.) (Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1966), 31–​58. See more generally Hermann Lübbe, Politische Philosophie in Deutschland (Basel and Stuttgart: B. Schwabe, 1963). 58 ‘Die Ideen von 1914’, 43, 44. 59 See esp. Brakelmann, Protestantische Kriegstheologie, 9–​15, 106–​13. 60 Ernst Troeltsch, ‘Die deutsche Idee von der Freiheit’ in Deutscher Geist, 80–​107, here 105. 61 ‘Vom ewigen Frieden (1914)’ in Hermann Cohen, Schriften zur Philosophie und Zeitgeschichte, 2 vols (Berlin: Akademie-​Verlag, 1928), ii, 342–​6, here 343. 62 Max Scheler, Der Genius des Krieges und der deutsche Krieg (Leipzig: Verlag der Weissen Bücher, 1915), 2. 63 Count Hermann von Keyserling, ‘On the Meaning of the War’, The Hibbert Journal 51 (1915): 523–​45, here 543. 64 Roland N. Stromberg, Redemption by War:  The Intellectuals and 1914 (Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1982), 198. 65 Renan, Qu’est ce qu’une nation?, 26. 66 Cited in Agnes von Zahn-​Harnack, Adolf von Harnack (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1951), 350.

45

The First World War 45 67 On this see esp. Ernest Gellner, ‘The Sacred and the National’ in Encounters with Nationalism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 59–​73. 68 Stromberg, Redemption by War, 198. 69 Václav Havel’s speech of 28 August 1990 to the Oslo Conference on ‘The Anatomy of Hate’; published as Václav Havel, ‘On Hatred’ (1990) in Czech Writers on Tolerance (Prague: Readers International, 1994), 13–​23, here 13. 70 See, for instance, Barth’s lecture, The Humanity of God (1956) (London: Collins, 1961), section 1. On this, see my Ernst Troeltsch and Liberal Theology: Religion and Cultural Synthesis in Wilhelmine Germany (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2001), ch. 1. 71 ‘The Armistice’ in The Testing of a Nation, 153–​64, here 162. 72 Ernst Troeltsch, Der Historismus und seine Probleme (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1922), 771–​2. 73 See Chapman, Ernst Troeltsch and Liberal Theology, esp. ch. 7. 74 Adolf von Harnack, published in Erforschtes und Erlebtes (Gießen:  A. Töpelmann, 1924), 314. 75 Erforschtes und Erlebtes, 324. 76 Again the parallels with Augustine, who recognized the notion of ‘caritas ordinata’, are obvious. This whole subject has been dealt with in relation to German re-​unification in a typically provocative essay by F. W. Graf, ‘Das Kreuz mit dem Gewissen. Protestantismus in der neuen Bundesrepublik’, Nachrichten der Evangelisch-​Lutherischen Kirche in Bayern 48 (1993): 41–​4. 77 Civ. Dei I.35. 78 On this, see Conor Cruise O’Brien’s analysis of Irish sacralized nationalism in Ancestral Voices: Religion and Nationalism in Ireland (Dublin: Poolbeg, 1994), esp. 100ff. 79 On this, see the revisions to the second edition of Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism, ch. 6, esp. 192. 80 Harnack, Erforschtes und Erlebtes, 320. 81 J. N. Figgis, The Political Aspects of S.  Augustine’s ‘City of God’ (London: Longmans, 1921), 58. 82 Theodor Schieder, Nationalismus und Nationalstaat. Studien zum nationalen Problemen im modernen Europa (Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 376. 83 Schieder, Nationalismus und Nationalstaat, 285. 84 Keyserling, ‘On the Meaning of the War’, 544. 85 On this, see my essay, ‘A Theology for Europe: Universality and Particularity in Christian Theology’, Heythrop Journal 25 (1994): 125–​39. 86 See Civ. Dei XIV.28. 87 Cited in Schieder, Nationalismus und Nationalstaat, 286. See also 302. 88 Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (Harmondsworth:  Penguin Books, 1967), 199. 89 Erforschtes und Erlebtes, 320. 90 Peter Glotz, Der Irrweg des Nationalstaats, Europäische Reden an ein deutsches Publikum (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-​Anstalt, 1990), 28. 91 Glotz, Der Irrweg, 39. 92 Glotz, Der Irrweg, 160. 93 On this see Chapman, ‘A Theology for Europe’, 134–​7. 94 Erforschtes und Erlebtes, 320 (Maxim Seven). 95 The problems of the European community and the problems of ‘transcendent Europeanism’ have been outlined by Philip Schlesinger in ‘Europeanness: A new Cultural Battlefield’ in Hutchinson and Smith (eds), Nationalism, 316–​25. 96 Keyserling, ‘On the Meaning of the War’, 545.

46

46  The First World War 97 Augustine, Civ. Dei XIX. 12. 98 Janet Martin Soskice, ‘The Truth Looks Different from Here or Seeking the Unity of Truth from a Diversity of Perspectives’ in Hilary Regan and Alan J. Torrance (eds), Christ and Context (Edinburgh:  T & T Clark, 1993), 43–​59, here 59. 99 This had been recognized long ago by Troeltsch. Indeed, as Hoover remarks: ‘If Troeltsch’s concept of “critical yet dutiful devotion” to the state had been the rule instead of the exception then German history in the twentieth century might have been different’ (The Gospel of Nationalism, 116). The critical dimension of nationalism is also emphasized by Conor Cruise O’Brien (God’s Land, 81). 100 Harnack, Erforschtes und Erlebtes, 320.

47

3 Missionaries, modernism, and German theology Anglican reactions to the outbreak of war in 1914

On 4 October 1914, exactly two months after Britain’s entry into the First World War, the so-​ called ‘Appeal to the Civilized World’,1 carrying the signatures of ninety-​three intellectuals, was published in the main German dailies. According to Karl Barth, this date was a ‘black day’ for theology. Among the signatories were seven Catholic and five Protestant theologians, including the liberals Adolf von Harnack2 and his own Marburg teacher Wilhelm Herrmann, the moderate Adolf Deissmann, and the conservatives Reinhold Seeberg and Adolf von Schlatter. ‘For me’, Barth went on, ‘nineteenth-​century theology no longer held any future’.3 Barth, of course, had his own purposes in distinguishing himself from his predecessors and downplaying any theological similarities with what went before  –​ his rhetorical devices are undoubtedly impressive. And, not surprisingly, histories of twentieth-​century theology have often seen 1914 as the great turning point.4 At the time, however, although there were immediate responses from Britain,5 France, and the United States,6 the Manifesto does not seem to have been regarded as particularly influential (even if it exerted an influence after the war as signatories sought to distance themselves from it). It followed on from an earlier Appeal of the German Universities issued in September and had a similar tone.7 Indeed, it is hard to imagine what a group of state-​sponsored academics who had been rallied together by the nascent imperial propaganda machine could have said differently. It might be regarded as a combination of the naïvity and enthusiasm which greeted the outbreak of war. This is clear from the six points of the manifesto, each of which begins with the phrase ‘Es ist nicht wahr’ [‘It is not true’]. These points try to justify Germany’s innocence in starting the war, as well as to deny some of the charges that had been levelled against Germany in its conduct during the invasion of Belgium, especially in Leuven (Louvain). Furthermore, it claimed, German ‘militarism’ had been misunderstood: ‘it arose out of, and for the protection of, German culture’. ‘Believe us!’, the Manifesto concluded, ‘we shall fight this fight to the bitter end as a civilized people, a people to whom the heritage of a Goethe, a Beethoven, a Kant is

48

48  Outbreak of war in 1914 as sacred as are its fire-​side and its glebe’.8 From a twenty-​first century point of view it is probably the fifth point that is most problematic. It claimed that an alliance with Russia would be to ‘exhibit to the world the disgraceful spectacle of inciting Mongolians and Negroes to attack the White Race’9 which meant that Britain and France could not be included among the civilized nations.10 Like the Manifesto itself, the official British response was principally a product of the new propaganda machine, which in Britain’s case was based at Wellington House in Buckingham Gate, London.11 It contained 117 signatories including a number of theologians, among them V. H. Stanton, Ely Professor of Divinity at Cambridge and William Sanday, Lady Margaret Professor at Oxford. Again like the German Manifesto there are few surprises in what is a very brief response: although the scholars express their indebtedness to German scholarship they nevertheless critique the White Book, which had purported to show Germany’s innocence.12 The British Reply followed on from some of the earlier British responses from intellectuals such as the letter to The Times from 53 writers published on 18 September 1914 which complained that, although they regarded German culture ‘with the highest respect and gratitude’, it remained the case that ‘no nation has the right by brute force to impose its culture upon other nations’. There is very little more that can be said about the British response to the Manifesto or indeed the Manifesto itself:  both were symptomatic of the early propaganda war and their contents were reproduced in many other documents. Perhaps the most important observation was that in October 1914 it was still the rhetoric of Asian barbarism that was central to the German propaganda machine at least as it related to the many efforts to win over American public opinion.13 This emphasis had been demonstrated by Harnack shortly after the outbreak of war on 11 August in a lecture which endeavoured to elicit support for Germany among American residents in Berlin. Harnack claimed that of the three great Anglo-​Saxon powers, it was Germany and America that preserved true culture against what he called the Byzantine or ‘Mongolian-​Muscovite culture’.14 He concluded, in words that have an ironic ring, given later usage:  ‘Father, protect our springs of life and save us from these Huns’.15 In a response to Harnack, eleven British non-​ conformists emphasized Germany’s culpability but did nothing to counter the language of the threats from the east.16 What has often been overlooked, especially by commentators in Britain, is the global dimension of the First World War, which was explicitly connected with the increasingly self-​conscious awareness of Christianity as a worldwide religion. In the wake of the World Missionary Conference held in Edinburgh in 1910, Christian discourse could not be restricted solely to the European context. My intention in this chapter is to focus on this very early period of the propaganda war in its global dimension, as it was reflected among Anglican theologians and church leaders. In doing so, I  will suggest that the War

49

Outbreak of war in 1914 49 offered a good opportunity for renewed attacks on liberal theology, a theme that will continue into the next chapter as I focus on the alliance with the Serbian Orthodox Church.

The missionary background The missionary background was particularly important in the context of the Church of England in 1914. Not only does it help clarify the tone of the English responses but also, as I will demonstrate, it was connected with the characterization of German theology as hampering the missionary effort, especially among more conservative churchmen. In the week before Britain’s entry into the First World War on 4 August 1914, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall T.  Davidson was busy in a meeting at Lambeth Palace where three East African bishops had been summoned before the Consultative Body of the Lambeth Conference. Their task was to discuss the crisis in the Anglican Communion emerging from the missionary conference that had been held in Kikuyu in British East Africa in June 1913.17 Somewhat hyperbolically, Charles Gore, Bishop of Oxford and leader of the Anglo-​ Catholics on the bench of bishops, had commented at the end of that year: ‘I doubt if the cohesion of the Church of England was ever more seriously threatened than it is now’.18 The problem was that the Anglican Bishops William Peel of Mombasa and John Willis of Uganda, both supported by the Church Missionary Society (an Evangelical foundation) had committed themselves to a temporary scheme for the Federation of Missionary Societies, and had invited non-​Anglicans to share in communion. This had deeply upset the Bishop of Zanzibar, Frank Weston, who was working with the staunchly Anglo-​Catholic Universities’ Mission to Central Africa. In a series of letters and pamphlets, he accused his fellow bishops of heresy and called for their resignation,19 since they had ‘contravened’ what he thought was ‘the fundamental principle of Church order’.20 In 1914 there was a flurry of Kikuyu-​related booklets and articles from different wings of the church which ranged across subjects as diverse as the requirement for confirmation before reception of communion, to the nature of the apostolic deposit.21 For the purposes of this chapter, what is particularly interesting is that Frank Weston explicitly connected these missionary problems with the path the Church of England seemed to have been taking in the previous few years, particularly during the discussions over the controversial collection, Foundations, produced by members of the Oxford Theology Faculty under B. H. Streeter’s editorship in 1912. Weston felt that Kikuyu was simply one more example of what he regarded as the infection of the church with a liberal theology which stemmed from Germany that was throwing off faith in the name of Reason. In a diocese that covered German East Africa, as well as the predominantly Muslim British Colony of the island of Zanzibar itself, Weston claimed that ‘the power of Islam will be broken not by a debating society but by the living, speaking church of the infallible

50

50  Outbreak of war in 1914 Word Incarnate’.22 Weston felt that modernism was a ‘new religion’,23 and, furthermore, if the Church of England simply sought to ‘protestantize the world’, then he would no longer have ‘place or lot’ within her borders.24 The call for non-​escalation of the war in the mission field, which I will discuss below, affected Weston more than most Anglican bishops: as the war progressed he joined British forces in Tanganyika in the fight for liberating those he called ‘Prussia’s Black Slaves’.25 For Weston, non-​episcopal churches –​which included the Lutheran churches –​had no right to be a part of catholic Christianity: it was the ‘same misunderstanding of language’, he commented, ‘as the claim that the Ulster Volunteer Force is, as a force, part of King George’s Army’.26 Statements and counter-​statements continued to be made throughout 1914: a particularly heated exchange was published in The Guardian on 6 August 1914, two days after the declaration of war, in response to the Lambeth meeting the previous week.27 After the outbreak of war, it comes as little surprise that most of the heat of the Kikuyu controversy evaporated even if the discussions continued.28 An internal and typical squabble between Anglo-​Catholics and Evangelicals over the doctrine of episcopacy in the mission field quickly paled into insignificance after the declaration of war. In Britain, as elsewhere in Europe, there was a degree of national unity behind a higher cause, which seemed to put other petty disputes into perspective.29 For instance, in a sermon preached shortly after the declaration of war on ‘The War and Man’s Redemption’, T. B. Strong, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, noted: We have set a bad and puzzling example to Europe, by our virulent dissensions, and I am sure we need to repent of them and to pray to God, all through the war time, that when peace comes, and this cannot be too soon, we may carry into the time the spirit of brotherhood which the common danger of this war has evoked. For it is this spirit of brotherhood which leads straight on to that full adoption as sons of our Father in heaven, which we and all the world around us expects.30 Nevertheless, despite the calls for brotherhood and an increased sense of national unity, the ecclesiastical controversies stemming from Kikuyu continued to take up the Archbishop’s time until the Consultative Body finally reported in the spring of 1915. Moreover, there was a sense in which the tone of the debates which fed into the Kikuyu and Foundations discussions were reflected in the responses of theologians and churchmen as they linked German theological liberalism with militarism in the months following the outbreak of war. This meant that after the outbreak of the First World War, at least to some extent, party division within the church took on a new dimension, as liberals could be accused of Germanophilia. Indeed, there was little sign of anti-​Germanism among liberals well into 1914. As late as 1 August, the day after Russian mobilization, nine British academics, including the

51

Outbreak of war in 1914 51 well-​known Anglican liberals F. C. Burkitt, Norrisian Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, Frederick John Foakes-​ Jackson, Dean of Jesus College, Cambridge, and Henry Latimer Jackson, an Essex Rector and theologian, wrote a letter to the Manchester Guardian where they declared that war against Germany would be a ‘sin against civilization’.31 Four further academics added their names two days later.32 It was clear, then, that Liberal theology and Germanophilia were close bedfellows, which provided useful ammunition to Anglo-​Catholics in the early months of the war. There were some who had made this connection several years beforehand. In a short book on the history of New Testament criticism published in 1907, for instance, the Anglo-​Catholic historical theologian and controversialist Leighton Pullan (1865–​1940), Fellow of St John’s College, Oxford from 1890–​ 1930, described what he called the ‘new religion’ of ‘liberal Protestantism’ or ‘Modern Protestantism’. For Pullan, this sort of religion was becoming increasingly dangerous since it was ‘no longer content to remain in the study and the university lecture room’ but had spread throughout Germany through organized lectures both among the ‘cultured and the working classes’.33 He continued:  ‘we are face to face with a non-​Christian religion’34 which was partly responsible for the moral breakdown of German society: As for Germany, one of the first things likely to arrest the thoughts of the inquirer into the state of German religion is that throughout Germany the proportion both of illegitimate births and suicides is higher in the Protestant districts than in Roman Catholic districts. Protestantism is honeycombed with rationalism, and the sense of moral obligation  is weaker where the sense of intellectual submission to divine truth is weaker.35 Noting the series of religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher dedicated to the German Emperor which were deliberately aimed at spreading liberal theological ideas among the broader population, he observed how Christianity had been ‘stated with cleverness’. He quoted a passage from Ernst Troeltsch’s lengthy essay Die Kultur der Gegenwart,36 which claimed that all that was left of Christ was ‘his originality and spiritual creative power’.37 Pullan reported that a ‘Dr Brückner of Karlsruhe’38 had declared that the Apostles’ Creed was undisputed only in Bremen and Hamburg.39 What this reveals is that German rational theology, at least in the mind of one conservative Oxford theologian, was directly linked to moral breakdown as early as 1907.40 For those with eyes to see, German theology, it seemed, was already destroying authentic Christianity even before the outbreak of war.

War propaganda Direct attacks on German theology, however, were not apparent in the opening weeks of the war. As might be expected, the church press was

52

52  Outbreak of war in 1914 preoccupied with attacks on German militarism in the name of a higher sense of peace and righteousness:  there was little sense of Jingoism but a clear sense of moral outrage. From the beginning of the war, attempts were made to differentiate between the higher values that Germany had contributed to the world and the degenerate ethics which were linked to Nietzsche, Treitschke and Bernhardi (which was later to form the substance of the British response to the Manifesto).41 On the same day that it first reported on German atrocities in Belgian cities,42 for instance, the leader in The Guardian, the Anglican weekly of record, was entitled (obviously echoing Matthew Arnold) ‘Culture or Anarchy’.43 It noted that although Germany had made a huge contribution, ‘not least in the department of ethics, in which the teaching of KANT long dominated European thought’, it was nevertheless the case that ‘the Germany, which honours NIETZSCHE has wandered far from the ideals of the Germany which honoured KANT. To-​day her culture is content to walk hand in hand with that deepest anarchy which makes its own needs and ambitions the measure of right and wrong’. These were what it called ‘Teutonic ethics, the ethics of any time since 1870’. The article concluded by pointing to the hypocrisy of German scholarship: Those Professors who prate about culture are indeed mere exponents of anarchy, of the right of a nation to invade and lay waste a friendly country because in so doing it can more rapidly reach an enemy with whom it has no quarrel. … These ethics ‘made in Germany’ are too gross and too primitive for consumption outside the Fatherland. This leader provoked a response shortly afterwards from Nietzsche’s translator, Oscar Levy, who reminded readers that ‘Nietzsche attacked this soulless and overbearing Germany in nearly all his books’. Rather than the times of Nietzsche, Levy continued, these are the times of Treitschke, Lagarde, and Bernhardi, not to forget the Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain, whose book, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, was sent by the German Emperor to every school in the Fatherland to become the Bible of the modern Teutomaniac.44 It is interesting to note that this discussion echoes the fascinating and complex construction of German militarism and its ideologues by British propagandists in the first years of the war.45 ‘Teutonic ethics’ became a leading theme in the early weeks of the war. In a sermon published on 17 September 1914, for instance, J. M. Wilson, Canon of Worcester Cathedral, preached on the revolt against Teutonic Conceptions.46 He asked: ‘What is it that has united the Anglo-​Saxon and Celt and Slav, yes, and India and Japan, against the Teuton?’ His answer emphasized that it was a type of unity established in its opposition to

53

Outbreak of war in 1914 53 Teutonism which lay far ‘below all our superficial differences’ and which had served to unite ‘Nationalist and Ulsterman’ in Ireland, ‘in South Africa Boer and Briton, in India Mussulman and Hindu, and in England united us all’. It was based on an appeal ‘to something far deeper than the innate love of fighting, than motives of self-​interest, than ordinary patriotism’. Instead, he continued, ‘nothing but an appeal to moral ideals Divinely implanted in man could have so united the world to resist to the death this recurrence to antiquated and non-​moral barbarism. Ultimately it arises from the presence in the soul of man of another and a higher conception of God and His purpose and working than that of the Teuton’. A week later, once the news of further German atrocities, including the ‘battering and burning of Rheims Cathedral’, had begun to reach the press, it had become clear to The Guardian leader writer that a Germany that ‘glories in calculated scoundrelism’ was clearly ‘outside the pale of civilisation’. The war was consequently a ‘spiritual conflict … between brutal materialism and the noblest ideals of humanity’.47 It was in this context that the ‘Address of the German Theologians to the Evangelical Christians Abroad’,48 signed by twenty-​nine theologians and churchmen, including Wilhelm Herrmann of Marburg, Gottlob Haussleiter of Halle, Carl Mirbt of Göttingen, Julius Richter of Berlin, and Georg Wobbermin of Breslau, began to be noted in the press. It served to reawaken interest in the missionary dimension of the war.49 In the Address, which was dated 4 September, the scholars had pleaded that the war should be confined to Europe so that the significant gains in the mission field should not be put at risk simply on account of a dispute between the great Christian missionary powers. The real fear, they claimed, came from what they called ‘Asiatic barbarism’.50 They noted that even ‘heathen Japan’ was now involved in the war ‘under the pretext of an alliance’.51 Furthermore it might lead to a heightened chance of insurrection in the colonies as the native peoples saw white fighting white. The language of the Address was graphic: peoples learned to know Christianity as the religion of love and peace as opposed to racial feuds and the cruelties of their chiefs. Now they are being led in arms against one another by the peoples who brought them this Gospel. Thus flourishing Mission-​fields are being trampled in ruin … The Mission-​fields which the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh indicated as the most important in the present day –​mid-​ Africa, with its rivalry between Christendom and Islam for the black races, and Eastern Asia remoulding its life  –​are now becoming the scenes of embittered struggles between peoples who bore in a special degree the responsibility for the fulfilment of the Great Commission in these lands.52 In short, the theologians declared, what was at risk was the ‘great hour of the missionary enterprise’.53

54

54  Outbreak of war in 1914 This Appeal, which The Guardian referred to as ‘Professorial hysteria’,54 elicited a reply which sought to address some of what were regarded as its false claims from a group of forty-​two churchmen led by the Archbishops of Canterbury, York and Armagh (of the Church of Ireland) but also including free church leaders. There were also a number of prominent academics among the signatories, including Henry Scott Holland, the Oxford Regius Professor of Divinity, M. R. James, Provost of King’s College, Cambridge, William Sanday, H. B. Swete, Regius Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, as well as Eugene Stock, former secretary of the CMS.55 The tone was conciliatory but firm. Although it recognized the great contributions of Germany to civilization and the importance of co-​operation in mission, it could not forgive Germany for violating the neutrality of small states: God knows what it means to us to be separated for a time from this great war from many with whom it has been our privilege –​with whom we hope it will be our privilege again –​to work for the setting forward of the Christian message among men. We unite whole-​heartedly with our German brethren in deploring the disastrous consequences of the war, and in particular its effect on diverting the energies and resources of the Christian nations from the great constructive tasks to which they were providentially called on behalf of the peoples of Asia and Africa. … We have taken our stand for international good faith, for the safeguarding of small nationalities, and for the essential conditions of brotherhood among the nations of the world. A second response was produced by a group of predominantly Anglican Oxford theologians who, while recognizing the ‘enormous output of the German universities in every department of scholarship’,56 dealt more directly with the Asian threat against ‘Teutonism’ and Protestantism.57 It pointed out (quite reasonably) that Germany’s ally, Turkey was ‘religiously just as much an Asiatic power as Japan’ and that the British Empire was a cohesive force in the fight against might where non-​Christians ‘can only rejoice if these Christian principles find an echo in the breast of non-​Christian peoples’.58 Finally, the Germans could no longer claim to be defending culture on the basis of the ‘sinister deeds’ they had perpetrated such as the ‘burning of the library of Louvain University and the bombardment of the Cathedral of Reims’. True Christian unity, it concluded, was not just between protestants and Teutonic Christians but had to include others, and might even spread to non-​Christians in the mission-​field.59 The theme of Prussian militarism continued to dominate much of the leader-​writing in the church press as well as preaching in the autumn of 1914, but it gradually came to adopt a more theological dimension. Reports of the dropping of a bomb on Notre Dame, according to The Guardian, further highlighted German savagery serving to render the Professors’ appeal increasingly redundant. ‘Civilisation’, it claimed, ‘is receding by centuries

55

Outbreak of war in 1914 55 under our very eyes’. The Guardian leader explicitly connected militarism and scholarship: ‘The professors of the New Warfare are at the same time the professors of the New Culture, and we know pretty well what the whole world thinks of both’.60 Similarly, Bishop George Frodsham, a Canon of Gloucester Cathedral and former Bishop of North Queensland, preached on the ethics of war,61 where he focused on the sorts of claims that had been made by Bernhardi who had mistaken Bonapartism for Christianity, disguising ‘the Corsican in the robes of Christ’. In a letter he wrote shortly afterwards which reflects something of the connection between German militarism and German Christological reductionism, he observed that the war was at heart a deadly conflict between Christian and pagan ideals –​between Christ and anti-​Christ –​contesting for empire over the souls of men. Not all Germans are materialistic, nor all Englishmen Christian. Neither is all that decks itself in the garb of Christian ethics truly Christian here or abroad. Moreover, it seems to me to be futile to quarrel with the Kaiser as to whether the good God is on our side or his. The real question is, are we on the side of Christ, whom we know, not as a philosophical ‘term of value’, but as the incarnate Revealer of the mind of God? This is the supreme issue of the war.62 Just ten weeks after the outbreak of war there consequently seems to have been an increasing recognition that liberal theology itself might have been more closely related to Prussian militarism than some would have wished for. One of the more unlikely sources for this approach is a review of W. O. E. Osterley’s book, The Books of the Apocrypha63 published in The Guardian on 15 October 1914. The anonymous reviewer asks a couple of rhetorical questions, which make his points abundantly clear: If in Josephus’s case this ‘shining armour’ of the warrior may have ‘concealed a Rabbi’, we are tempted to ask whether the philosopher’s cloak of the modern German theological professor is always innocent of covering the ‘shining armour’ or other less attractive features of Prussian militarism? Will the present great war which is likely to result in a very wide transmutation of German values, lead us also to a revised estimate of German scholarship, and more especially of German theological scholarship? Although the reviewer felt it would be ‘a ridiculous spirit of Jingoism, utterly foreign to the prevailing temper of Britain today, if one were to object to critical and historical “results” or to theological opinions simply on the grounds that they are “Made in Germany” ’, he nevertheless felt that the ‘conduct of the war, interpreted by the writings of the Bernhardi school, has

56

56  Outbreak of war in 1914 taught us more of Germany’s ways and temper than we knew before’. He went on to suggest in tentative but nevertheless clear terms that ‘it would not be altogether unfair to cast some of the blame of those unspeakable deeds which have branded modern Prussianism as savagely pagan on the extreme left of German theological scholarship’. He concluded on a Christological note reminiscent of Pullan and Figgis: You cannot, whether lightheartedly or of set purpose, undermine a whole generation’s belief in the historical Jesus without furthering, consciously, or unconsciously, that reversion to ‘berserk’ paganism, that revolt from Galilee, in which the modern votaries of Thor and Odin make their boast. … Has German theological scholarship after all any of the characteristic traits of Prussian militarism? … Does the theological leader suffer from any of that lack of the finer feelings of humanity –​sympathy, love, mercy, and judgement, even of sympathetic imagination –​which is so conspicuous a trait of the contemporary Teutonic war-​leader?64 Even though such explicit links between Prussianism and liberal theology might seem somewhat laboured, they were shared by others at the time. In a University Sermon preached at Oxford, for instance, Edward Lyttleton, Headmaster of Eton and well-​known cricketer spoke of ‘The Danger of Critical Christianity’.65 The real threat, he felt, was that ‘the Christian Creed loses its mystery; and, while ceasing to challenge doubts, it ultimately fails to arrest attention. Its history is first to become inoffensive, then negligible, then contemptible’. After Napoleon’s defeat of Germany in 1806 the nation had been prone to a kind of heresy, coming to the belief that ‘a strong army would bring them something more tangible, more desirable, than was to be expected from the corporate worship of the Most High God or the reverent acceptance of the mystery of His Revelation’. He concluded by asking his congregation: Why was the [German] national mind so receptive of the overtures of the God of this world? And the answer is that the great antidote which might have been securely lodged in their thoughts was not there. It was diluted with rationalism; the salt had lost its savour, and the corruption worked unhindered. And it is for us now to put the same question. Are we, too, not drugging ourselves with the same poison? In the University pulpit in Oxford, then, rationalism and militarism were once again explicitly connected. Something similar had been suggested by Charles Wood, Lord Halifax (1839–​1934), the influential lay leader of the Anglo-​Catholics, at a meeting of the English Church Union held on 25 November 1914.66 After observing that the war was a sign that ‘Culture and civilisation apart from Christianity

57

Outbreak of war in 1914 57 were doomed to destruction’, he went on to make the explicit link with liberal theology emphasizing the holy alliance with Russia: If German Professors and theologians could be so hopelessly wrong about events in our own cognisance, they were likely to be equally wrong about those weightier matters dealing with religious criticism especially associated with their names. Could we attach much weight to the conclusions that they might have arrived at in regard to the history of the Old and New Testaments concerning the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection on the Third day … when we saw the conclusions they were prepared to press as undoubted truth in regard to the history of the present? For us, as for Russia, the war was a holy war. For men like Halifax, the holy war was proving a useful weapon in the attacks on liberal theology. This was to become even clearer the following year after the publication in the spring of 1915 of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s report on the Kikuyu controversy. Once again there was discussion of East African episcopacy and its wider ecclesiological implications, but this time it took on a different tone. Leighton Pullan gave some addresses which bore the telling title: Missionary Principles and the Primate on Kikuyu. Three addresses with some observations on the present German movement in the Church of England. Pullan explicitly connected the sorts of observations he had made in his 1907 book with the theological tone that was developing in response to German aggression. Once again seeking to sully the reputation of English liberal theology, Pullan pointed to its origin in morally disreputable and theologically unorthodox German theology: Professor Gardner,67 an Oxford man of distinction, recently alluded to German theologians, and complained that the ‘feeling against everything German was running so high that there was a serious prejudice against Englishmen who took anything like the same view’. The fact which appears to have grieved Professor Gardner will gratify many who are even better acquainted with recent events.68 Pullan’s quest was to purge the church of the German heresy which had revealed its true colours in what he regarded as the morally degenerate invasion of Belgium. He began the introduction to the published version of his book by noting that ‘Up to the very brink of the war the reverence which was paid in this country to a certain class of German professors went beyond all reasonable bounds’. This had served to encourage ‘among many of our clergy, and some of our laity, a temper which was unpatriotic and even·anti-​ Christian’ and was even ‘asphyxiating vocations to the ministry’. Just as ‘second hand versions of second-​rate

58

58  Outbreak of war in 1914 German divinity flooded the country’, he went on, so ‘in our universities Germany, and not the most religious part of Germany, was coming to be regarded as the Englishman’s “spiritual home” ’.69 He continued with typical rhetoric: It was so regarded by people who had no real knowledge of the perversion of ideals, the decay of piety, the widespread immorality, which were slowly fulfilling the prophecy of Heine that the Germans would restore their heathen gods and hack the Gothic cathedrals in pieces. For such English people as these, when Berlin had spoken, a cause was finished. We cannot prudently overlook the fact that when the Bishop of Winchester and the Bishop of Oxford showed their resolve to maintain within the limits of their jurisdiction the teaching of the New Testament, writers of such different talents as Mrs Humphry Ward and Dr. Sanday appealed to the Protestant universities of Germany. The German movement is still being actively organized and the Creed steadily assailed by clergymen and laymen who call themselves ‘Modern Churchmen’ or ‘Liberal Churchmen’. Some appear to hold a lower view of Christ than that taken by a reverent Moslem … Others act in agreement with Dr. Sanday’s advice, and abstain from ‘a bleak and unqualified denial’. … It is enough for them to repeat the words of evangelists and saints, and then to suggest ‘restatements’ drawn from Harnack, Loofs and Schweitzer.70 In this regard, Pullan was deeply critical of men like Sanday and Hastings Rashdall, the Bampton Lecturer for 1915, who appealed ‘to the opinions of the Protestant Universities of Europe’, as they mediated German theology to England.71 Most crucially for Pullan, it was what he called ‘The Prussianizing of theology in Great Britain’ that was affecting the way in which the Creeds were being increasingly questioned. This had become ‘so serious that unless this terrible war has happily checked it we must expect new developments, or rather, new imitations of Prussian views concerning clerical sincerity’. Indeed, it seemed that in Germany clerical discipline had broken down altogether: It is certain that a large number of Protestant ministers in Germany believe that a minister is entitled to retain his post although he denies the existence of a personal God and throws doubt even on the existence of Jesus Christ. The notorious cases of Dr. Karl Jatho of Cologne, in 1911, and Pastor Gottfried Traub, in 1912, prove this fact to the hilt.72 The result upon the religious life of the people was described to me by an Evangelical clergyman who called upon me a few months before the war, and said with sorrow that, except in Bonn, where the

59

Outbreak of war in 1914 59 Gospel is preached, the Protestant churches along the Rhine were practically emptied.73 Pullan then went on to make the telling connection between theology and the war: ‘Morally the result is seen in the tale of Belgium. Intellectually the situation has been summed up by Professor Troeltsch in these words –​“all we can say with certainty is that we are not Catholics.” Probably no one can speak with higher authority than Troeltsch’.74 Indeed, Pullan felt, there was not much left to such a form of Christianity which was morally and spiritually bankrupt. He concluded with a passionate missionary plea for a return to the Great Commission rather than the morally dubious Christ of a Germanising liberal theology: We shall either keep the Gospel of Galilee and carry it to the heathen, or we shall adopt the Gospel of Berlin. To the former belong the words of Jesus, ‘I am the Light of the world’, and ‘Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations’, To the latter belong the words of the Bampton Lecturer [Rashdall] for this year, ‘It is doubtful whether Jesus expressly thought of himself as more than the Messiah and saviour of his own people’.75

Conclusion What this brief survey reveals is the close connections between the rhetoric of war and the party polemics of the Church of England: the Manifesto of the Ninety-​Three and the Address to the Evangelical Christians both provided useful foils for the continuation of the ecclesiastical disputes that had been so heated in the months leading up the War. In the early years of the war, the bankruptcy of German culture was equated with the heresy of liberal theology by a number of conservative Anglo-​Catholics. At the same time, more liberal theologians were forced to distance themselves from their former German friends for fear of being seen as Germanophiles or heretics or both. As Samuel Hynes put it (albeit in a different context):  ‘The war had virtually stopped the English Modern movement’.76 What all this also shows is that Barth was not unique in his estimation of 1914: far lesser theologians were making what to some might seem to be equally implausible connections between Prussian militarism and liberal theology. The primitive propaganda machine of the German Empire that drove the professorial appeals consequently has a great deal to answer for in the history of theology. How relations between English and German theology developed through the course of the First World War will be developed in the next two chapters, first in relation to the Eastern churches, especially that of Serbia, and second in relation to the personal ties between English theologians and their German counterparts.

60

60  Outbreak of war in 1914

Notes 1 ‘An die Kulturwelt’, Berliner Tageblatt, 4 October 1914. See the critical edition and account of the production of the Manifesto in Jürgen von Ungern-​Sternberg and Wolfgang von Ungern-​Sternberg, Der Aufruf ‘An der Kulturwelt’ (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996. Second expanded edition with a contribution from Trude Maurer as Menschen und Strukturen, Bd 21; Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main u.a. 2013). References are to the first edition. The relevant documents are reproduced on 156–​ 64 (including French and two English translations). One other important Protestant theologian among the ninety-​three signatories was the liberal Friedrich Naumann. There were also many Roman Catholic scholars, including the church historians, Albert Ehrhard and Henrich Finke, the theologian Anton Koch, Joseph Mausbach, Sebastian Merkle and August Schmidlin. See also Hans Wehberg, Wider den Aufruf der 93 (Charlottenburg: Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft für Politik and Geschichte, 1920); and Bernhard vom Brocke, ‘Wissenschaft und Militarismus: Der Aufruf der 93 “An die Kulturwelt!” und der Zusammenbruch der internationalen Gelehrtenrepublik im Ersten Weltkrieg’ in William M. Calder III (ed.), Wilamowitz nach 50 Jahren (Darmstadt:  Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985), 649–​719. On the various other war manifestos see esp. Charles E. Bailey, ‘Gott mit Uns: Germany’s Protestant Theologians in the First World War’, Ph.D. thesis (University of Virginia, 1978), esp. 480–​85. Troeltsch did not sign Seeberg’s ‘Petition of the Intellectuals’ of 8 July 1915 but signed the counter-​petition of 28 July 1915. For an extremely one-​sided view of the activities of German theologians during the war from a Fischer perspective see Julian Jenkins, ‘War Theology, 1914 and Germany’s Sonderweg: Luther’s Heirs and Patriotism’, The Journal of Religious History 15 (1989): 292‒310. See also, Kurt Flasch, Die geistige Mobilmachung. Die deutschen Intellektuellen und der Erste Weltkrieg (Berlin: Alexander Fest Verlag, 2000). 2 See J. C. O’Neill, ‘Adolf von Harnack and the entry of the German state into war, July–​August 1914’, Scottish Journal of Theology 55 (2002): 1–​18. 3 Karl Barth, ‘Evangelical Theology in the Nineteenth Century (1956)’, in The Humanity of God (London: Collins, 1961), 11–​33, 14. See my Ernst Troeltsch and Liberal Theology: Religion and Cultural Synthesis in Wilhelmine Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), ch. 1. 4 Heinz Zahrnt, The Question of God (London: Collins, 1969), 15. 5 The Times, 21 October 1914. ‘Reply to the German Professors by British Scholars’, New York Times Current History of the European War 1 (1914): 188–​91. 6 For a discussion of responses from various nations, see Ungern-​Sternberg, Der Aufruf, 81–​104. 7 ‘Appeal of the German Universities’, New  York Times Current History of the European War 1 (1914): 187–​8. 8 Ungern-​Sternberg, Der Aufruf, 163. On the history of German denials, see John N. Horne and Alan Kramer, German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), esp. 9–​53. 9 Ungern-​Sternberg, Der Aufruf, 162. 10 See below, Chapter 4, in relation to the changing perceptions of Orthodoxy during the War. 11 ‘Reply to the German Professors by British Scholars’. Gilbert Murray, Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford, collected the signatures. He had been recruited by Wellington House; see Murray to A. H. Sayce, 12 October 1914, in the Sayce correspondence (vol. 7, MSS Engl. letters, d 68, Bodleian Library, Oxford), cited in Charles E. Bailey, ‘The British Protestant theologians in the First World War:  Germanophobia Unleashed’, Harvard Theological Review 77 2

61

Outbreak of war in 1914 61 (1984): 195–​221, here 203. On British Propaganda, see Gary S. Messinger, British Propaganda and the State in the First World War (Manchester:  Manchester University Press, 1992); Adrian Gregory, ‘A Clash of Cultures:  The British Press and the Opening of the Great War’ in Troy E. Paddock (ed.), A Call to Arms: Propaganda, Public Opinion, and Newspapers in the Great War (Westport, Connecticut:  Praeger, 2004), 15–​ 50; and Adrian Gregory, The Last Great War: British Society and the First World War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), ch. 2.  On the use of the word ‘culture’ in the early part of the war, see 58–​9. See also Stuart Wallace, War and the Image of Germany: British Academics 1914–​1918 (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1988). 12 See also Ungern-​Sternberg, Der Aufruf, 95–​6; and vom Brocke, ‘Wissenschaft und Militarismus’, 669. Vom Brocke traces the themes of the Manifesto through the course of the war with particular reference to the great classical scholar, Wilamowitz-​Moellendorf. 13 See David Welch, Germany and Propaganda in World War I:  Pacifism, Mobilization and Total War (London: I. B. Tauris, 2014), esp. 13, 15. 14 ‘To Americans in Germany’, New York Times Current History of the European War 1 (1914): 198–​201, 199. 15 ‘To Americans in Germany’, 201. Adolf von Harnack, ‘Rede zur “deutsch-​ amerikanischen Sympathie-​Kundgebung,” ’ and ‘Ein Schreiben von elf englischen Theologen, Aug. 27, 1914’, in Harnack, Aus der Friedens-​und Kriegsarbeit (Giessen:  Topelmann, 1916), 283–​93; see also Stuart Mews, ‘Neo-​Orthodoxy, Liberalism and War:  Karl Barth, P.  T. Forsyth and John Oman, 1914–​ 1918’, in Derek Baker (ed.), Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History (Oxford: Blackwell, 1977), 361–​75, here 366. 16 ‘A Reply to Harnack by Some British Theologians’ in New York Times Current History of the European War 1 (1914): 201–​2. 17 G. K. A. Bell, Randall Davidson (London: Oxford University Press, 1935), 690–​ 708, esp. 702–​3. See The Archbishop of Canterbury, Kikuyu (London: Macmillan, 1915), 6. See my essay, ‘Kikuyu, Anglo-​Catholics and the Church of England’ in Jeremy Bonner and Mark Chapman (eds), After Kikuyu: Sacramental and Ecumenical Strife in English and African Anglicanism (forthcoming). 18 The Times, 29 December 1913. 19 Frank Weston, Ecclesia Anglicana:  For what does she stand? An open letter to the Right Reverend Father in God, Edgar, Lord Bishop of St Albans (London: Longmans, 1913), 19–​20. See also Weston’s letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, The Guardian, 20 February 1914, 249, and the reply, 249–​50. On Weston, see my Bishops, Saints and Politics (London: T & T Clark, 2007), ch. 10. 20 Frank Weston, The Case Against Kikuyu. A Study in Vital Principles (London: Longmans, 1914), 33. 21 See the various Kikuyu Tracts (all published in 1914 by Longmans):  H.  M. Gwatkin, The Confirmation Rubric:  Whom Does it Bind? (Is Confirmation Indispensable for Communion in the Church of England?); Episcopacy. 1.  In Scripture; 2. In the Church of England; Eugene Stock, The Church in the Mission Field; Guy Warman, The Ministry and Unity; Arthur James Tait, What is our Deposit?; Handley Moule, That They All May Be One. See also H. Hensley Henson, The Issue of Kikuyu: A Sermon (London: Macmillan, 1914). 22 Weston, Ecclesia Anglicana, p. 14. 23 Weston, Ecclesia Anglicana, p. 27. 24 Weston, Ecclesia Anglicana, p. 28. 25 Frank Weston, The Black Slaves of Prussia: an Open Letter Addressed to General Smuts (London: Universities’ Mission to Central Africa, 1918).

62

62  Outbreak of war in 1914 26 The Case Against Kikuyu, 62. 27 The Guardian 6 August 1914, 988. 28 See Desmond Morse-​ Boycott, The Secret History of the Oxford Movement (London: Skeffington, 1933), 238. 29 On this, see Roland N. Stromberg, Redemption by War: The Intellectuals and 1914 (Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1982), esp. ch. 9; Gregory, The Last Great War, ch. 1. 30 The Guardian, 20 August 1914, 1017. 31 Manchester Guardian, 1 August 1914, 9. 32 Manchester Guardian, 3 August 1914, 9. 33 Leighton Pullan, New Testament Criticism during the Past Century (London: Longmans, 1907), 30. 34 Pullan, New Testament Criticism, 32. 35 Pullan, New Testament Criticism, 34. 36 See Ernst Troeltsch, ‘Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche in der Neuzeit’, in Paul Hinneberg (ed.), Die Kultur der Gegenwart (Berlin and Leipzig: Teubner, 1906), part 1, section 4, 431–​755. 37 Leighton Pullan, New Testament Criticism, 31. 38 Martin Brückner (b. 1868) had studied at Halle and was a military chaplain at the Cadet House in Karlsruhe and author of Die Entstehung der Paulinischen Christologie (Straßburg: J. H. E. Heitz, 1903). 39 Leighton Pullan, New Testament Criticism, 34. 40 Many others observed something similar. In Cambridge, for instance, J.  N. Figgis, a Mirfield Father, lecturer in Cambridge, and a great preacher, spoke of ‘the reduced Christianity dear to the Teutonic Savant’ (Civilisation at the Cross Roads (London:  Longmans, 1912), 193. See also Gospel and Human Needs (London: Longmans, 1909), 4). See below, Chapter 5. 41 This was the main thrust of the reply to the Manifesto, 188. Friedrich Adolf Julius von Bernhardi was the best-​selling author of Deutschland und der Nächste Krieg (Stuttgart and Berlin:  J.G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung, 1912). English Translation by Allen H. Powles: Germany and the Next War (London: Edward Arnold, 1912). 42 The Guardian, 27 August 1914, 1025. 43 The Guardian, 27 August 1914, 1032. The capitalized words are in the original article. 44 The Guardian, 10 September 1914, 1060. The suspicion of all things ‘Made in Germany’ was later applied to other things and can now appear rather amusing. See, for instance, the advertisement in The Guardian on 8 October 1914, 1156 for Wolsey woollen underwear: ‘To every Briton worth the name the day of German underwear is past. Wolsey, with its British honesty of manufacture, of material, and of value, waits to take its place. For German Underwear –​branded or otherwise –​has hardly ever shown its buyers other than a spurious advantage; its “cheapness” has seldom meant true economy’. 45 See Ungern-​Sternberg, Der Aufruf, 90–​92; Gregory, The Last Great War, ch. 2. Bernhardi, it seems, was less important for Germans than the British claimed. 46 The Guardian, 17 September, 1078–​9. 47 The Guardian, 24 September 1914, 1100. See also See also Hilda D. Oakeley, ‘German Thought: The Real Conflict’, Church Quarterly Review 79 (1914): 95–​ 119; and Shannon Ty Bontrager, ‘The Imagined Crusade: The Church of England and the Mythology of Nationalism and Christianity during the Great War’, Church History 71:4 (2002): 774–​98. On Teutonism see also G. K. Chesterton, ‘The Serbs in History:  Harnack and Teutonism, Again’, The Illustrated London News, 10 October 1914, in G. K. Chesterton, Collected Works (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986–​), vol. 30, 175–​6.

63

Outbreak of war in 1914 63 48 ‘An die evangelischen Christen im Ausland’ (dated 4 September) in Die Eiche 3 (1915) 49–​53, in Gerhard Besier, Die protestantischen Kirchen Europas im Ersten Weltkrieg. Ein Quellen-​und Arbeitsbuch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1984), 40–​45; it was published in English as ‘Address of the German Theologians to the Evangelical Christians Abroad’, in an appendix to a reply produced in Oxford: To the Christian Scholars of Europe and America: A Reply from Oxford to the German Address to Evangelical Christians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1914), 19–​ 23. For details of the various manifestos and counter-​manifestos, see Charles E.  Bailey, ‘Gott mit uns:  Germany’s Protestant Theologians in the First World War’, Ph.D. thesis (University of Virginia, 1978), esp. 479–​87. 49 The Guardian, 1 October 1914, 1118. 50 ‘Address of the German Theologians’, 20. 51 ‘Address of the German Theologians’, 21. 52 ‘Address of the German Theologians’, 21. 53 ‘Address of the German Theologians’, 21. 54 The Guardian, 1 October 1914, 1118. See also The Guardian, 8 October 1914, 1129. 55 The Guardian, 1 October, 1110. See Keith Clements, Faith on the Frontier: A Life of J. H. Oldham (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 127–​9; Bell, Davidson, 740–​ 44. Other prominent Anglicans were the Bishops of London, Brechin (Primus of the Episcopal Church of Scotland), Winchester and Ossory, as well as the Deans of St Paul’s, Westminster, Durham, Christ Church (also Vice-​Chancellor of the University) and Wells. 56 A Reply from Oxford, 14. 57 A Reply from Oxford, 8–​10. Both Albert Marrin (The Last Crusade; the Church of England in the First World War (Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1974), 109–​10) and Karl Barth (‘Evangelical Theology in the Nineteenth Century (1956)’, in The Humanity of God (London:  Collins, 1961), 11–​ 33, 14)  confuse the appeal of the twenty-​nine Germans ‘To the Protestant Christians Abroad’ with the Manifesto of the ninety-​three. Marrin also confuses the reply of the forty-​two British churchmen with the reply of the twenty-​ five Oxford dons. 58 A Reply from Oxford, 13. 59 A Reply from Oxford, 15. A  further reply by the Germans decried Britain’s alliance with Japan as an unnatural marriage of the white and yellow races (Karl Axenfeld et al., ‘Noch einmal ein Wort an die evangelischen Christen im Auslande’, 20 November 1914, Die Eiche 3 (1915): 67–​75). In the Christian Socialist journal, Commonwealth, Henry Scott Holland accused the Germans of racism. See ‘Notes of the Month’, Commonwealth 20 (1915): 39–​40, cited in Bailey, ‘Germanophobia’, 202. William Sanday, the most important expositor of German theology in England, wrote a personal response entitled The Deeper Causes of War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1914), in which he sought ‘to weigh calmly and try to understand’ (10) what was going on, while at the same time differentiating between most Germans, who were a ‘quiet, peace-​loving people’ (5) and those who had succumbed to the perversion of Prussian militarism. See below Chapter 5. 60 The Guardian, 15 October 1914, 1161. 61 The Guardian, 8 October 1914. 62 The Guardian, 19 November 1914, 1271. 63 W. O. E. Osterley, The Books of the Apocrypha (London: Scott, 1914). 64 The Guardian, 15 October 1914, 1171. 65 The Guardian, 22 October 1914, 1213. 66 The Guardian, 26 November 1914, 1313.

64

64  Outbreak of war in 1914 67 Percy Gardner (1848–​1937), Oxford Professor of Classical Archaeology, was a leading member of the liberal Modern Churchmen’s Union, serving as president from 1915–​1922. 68 Leighton Pullan, Missionary Principles and the Primate on Kikuyu. Three addresses with some observations on the present German movement in the Church of England (Oxford: Mowbray, 1915), iii. 69 Leighton Pullan, Missionary Principles, iii. 70 Leighton Pullan, Missionary Principles, iv. See below, Chapter 5. 71 Leighton Pullan, Missionary Principles, 27. 72 These are references to the famous ‘heresy’ trials in pre-​War Germany. Carl Jatho (1851–​1913), a Cologne pastor, was accused of Pantheism and dismissed from his position. Otto Baumgarten came to his defence. The left-​liberal Gottfried Traub (1869–​1956), pastor in Dortmund, questioned Jesus as a miracle-​worker and was dismissed although he continued as the Director of the Bund Deutscher Protestanten. Harnack defended Traub against the Oberkirchenrat:  Die Dienstentlassung des Pfarrers Lic. G. Traub (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1912). See Julia Winnebeck, Apostolikumsstreitigkeiten: Diskussionen um Liturgie, Lehre und Kirchenverfassung in der preußischen Landeskirche 1871–​1914 (Arbeiten zur Kirchen-​ und Theologiegeschichte) (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016). 73 Leighton Pullan, Missionary Principles, 10. 74 Leighton Pullan, Missionary Principles, 10. 75 Leighton Pullan, Missionary Principles, 30. 76 Samuel Hynes, A War Imagined:  The First World War and English Culture (London: Pimlico, 1992), 65.

65

4 The Church of England, Serbia, and the Serbian Orthodox Church in the First World War

A common front against liberalism In January 1917, Leighton Pullan (1865–​ 1940), Chaplain and Fellow of St John’s College, Oxford for forty years from 1890–​1930 preached at St Margaret’s Church in North Oxford. Taking as his text Isaiah ­chapter 52, he spent some time pleading for the Church of England and the Serbian Orthodox Church to continue to deepen their understanding of one another.1 For Pullan, who was a historian of doctrine, an ardent controversialist, and a committed Anglo-​Catholic ecumenist, the changed international situation brought about by the First World War appeared to offer a real possibility of reunion between the churches of the East and West. The difficult situation held out much promise: [W]‌hen we think of the Church of England and the Church of Serbia it seems hardly possible to speak of separation and disunion. I do not think lightly or gaily of theological differences. … But … how wrong it must be to exaggerate differences of belief.2 As was discussed in the previous chapter, Pullan made frequent salvos against German liberal theology, and an alliance with an anti-​liberal and anti-​German Orthodoxy offered another front for his campaign. In his sermon, although Pullan did not equate the trials of the Church of England against the pernicious influence of German liberalism with those of the Serbian Church during Ottoman times, he nevertheless claimed that both churches had suffered at the hands of opponents. Where the Serbian Church ‘had been injured by long Turkish domination’, he claimed, ‘[i]‌n England and America the Church has by no means recovered from the semi-​ strangulation inflicted on her by alien foreign kings and unscrupulous statesmen’. On the one hand, he held, ‘we deplore the fact that Serbia has been victim of insatiable German ambition’, while, on the other hand, Pullan called on ‘our Serbian friends to sympathize with us in the difficulty we have in expelling a pernicious German influence from our own University and Church’.3 Pullan went on to draw an explicit connection between the

66

66  Serbian Church in the First World War resilience of Serbian Orthodoxy in maintaining its identity through the long years of the dominion of Ottoman Turkey, and the strength of Orthodoxy which had managed to resist the gospel of German materialism that had penetrated the British universities in the years before the war, and which, he held, had even distorted the nature of the Church of England. As one of the leading champions of the Serbian Orthodox Church in England, Pullan, who is the main subject of this chapter, was awarded the Order of St Sava (third class) after the First World War. Along with a number of other Anglo-​Catholics,4 Pullan held that the influence of German liberalism had led to the growth of an idolatrous form of materialism, which had spread throughout the whole of modern culture and had created a new form of idolatry that manifested itself in ‘the worship of what we can see and touch and taste’. He went on: ‘There is indifference … There is a false culture, which is only efficiency without Christ, only a body without a soul, a monster which is more dangerous to civilisation than mere barbarism can ever be’.5 Materialism, according to Pullan, threatened the whole of western culture including its theology, and had to be resisted at all costs. As part of this resistance he felt that an alliance with the Orthodoxy of Britain’s Eastern allies, pre-​eminently Serbia and Russia, would act as a counterweight to this influence of German liberalism which had led to a serious and widespread distortion of English theology before the War. Indeed, the outbreak of war in 1914 offered new opportunities for an ecumenical united front against liberalism, especially in its German guises.6 This chapter focuses in particular on how public perceptions of Serbia and its Orthodox Church changed through the First World War. As the country where the First World War began, and in whose support Russia had entered the war, Serbia suddenly entered the British public perception in a manner unprecedented even through the perpetual crises of the early years of the twentieth century.7

Escaping liberalism English theology, particularly in Oxford and Cambridge, had become increasingly influenced by German theology in the years before the outbreak of war. At least among some prominent English theologians, including William Sanday, Lady Margaret Professor in Oxford, German critical theology proved crucial for the development of the subject.8 Debates between conservatives and liberals in England were especially heated in the summer of 1914 before the outbreak of war.9 Among some liberal theologians and churchmen there was a real fear that war with Germany, especially in defence of the nations of Eastern Europe which to many seemed only half-​ civilized, would put an end to serious theological scholarship. For example, as discussed in the previous chapter, as late as 1 August 1914, the day after Russian mobilization, nine British academics, including the well-​ known Anglican liberal theologians F.  C. Burkitt, Frederick John Foakes-​Jackson

67

Serbian Church in the First World War 67 and Henry Latimer Jackson wrote to the Manchester Guardian where they questioned the appropriateness of fighting for the defence of eastern nations, which they regarded as barely civilized. Indeed, they held that it would be a ‘sin against civilization’ to fight against Germany, ‘a nation so near akin to our own’ and ‘leading the way in the arts and sciences’, in defence of the interests of backward and superstitious nations of Serbia and Russia.10 Such views of the East were not restricted solely to liberals. The ultra-​ patriotic paper, John Bull, for instance, had reacted to the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand on ‘Kosovo Day’, 1914, shortly before the outbreak of war in bold capital letters: ‘TO HELL WITH SERBIA’11 (even if its attitudes quickly changed after mobilization).12 In the minds of many Anglo-​Catholics like Pullan, liberal theology and German rationalism and militarism had long been regarded as closely related. Anglo-​Catholics, who were growing increasingly influential in the English church in the early years of the twentieth century, had consequently become very suspicious of the impact of German thought in the years leading up to the war: Pullan, as one of the leading conservative churchmen in Oxford, had made this connection several years beforehand, when he spoke about what he called the ‘new religion’ of ‘liberal Protestantism’ which was leading to social and moral breakdown in Germany.13 The renewed dialogue and discussion with the conservative churches of the Eastern Allies provided further weaponry in the arsenal of Anglo-​Catholic anti-​liberalism. This meant that the increasing ecumenical openness to the churches of the East was, to some extent at least, an expression of the party divisions within the Church of England, especially the strong anti-​liberalism of most Anglo-​Catholics. Consequently, alongside the frequent attacks by Anglo-​Catholics on the watered down religion of Germany discussed in the previous chapter, a few commentators noted the importance of Eastern Christianity as a sympathetic religious force to counter liberalism. For instance, Henry Falconar Barclay Mackay (1864–​1936) vicar of one of the leading Anglo-​Catholic Churches in central London, All Saints’, Margaret Street,14 thought that the war would promote reconciliation and dialogue between the conservative churches of both the East and the West. Writing in the Anglo-​Catholic weekly, Church Times in 1915 he noted that ‘However this war ends, whether the Allies win or whether Germany wins, it will deal the death blow to Teutonic Protestantism as a religious force. Indeed it is the end of the religion of the Bible divorced from the Church’. Using an Old Testament image, he went on: ‘The tutelary deity of Prussia is the tribal deity who was repudiated in the spiritual development of Israel’. At the end of the war, he felt, we would be ‘thrown back on the Catholic Church, and will realise with a new dismay that the Church is divided’. This rediscovery of the Catholic Church, Mackay held, would in turn pave the way for reunion. Commenting on the newly independent churches of Eastern Europe, he remarked:

68

68  Serbian Church in the First World War The ancient Patriachates have been liberated to a large extent from the tyranny of the Turk, and the Southern Slavs have grown powerful. This immensely reinforced Eastern Church will find itself face to face with a Latin Christianity purified and ennobled by suffering. This may be God’s opportunity. Recognizing that the path of reconciliation between West and East would not necessarily be easy, Mackay nevertheless felt that the way out of the difficulties over papal primacy ‘would be for all parts of Christendom to submit themselves freely to each other’s sacramental processes’.15 Ecumenism was thus the triumph that would emerge from the tragedy of war. It was quite clear, then, that almost from the outset of the war a greater Anglican openness to ecumenism with both Rome and the East was explicitly connected with the need for a common front against a German-​inspired liberal theology –​equated with a nationalist ideology –​ that had threatened to dominate the Church of England in the years before the War.

The perception of Serbia or Servia There were, however, many obstacles that needed to be overcome to make this ecumenical promise a reality.16 In the first place, at the beginning of the War there was in general was a profound ignorance of the history and politics of the Balkans in general and Serbia in particular. This is well illustrated from one of the early propaganda pamphlets produced by Oxford University Press shortly after the outbreak of war. Nevill Forbes (1883–​1929), the first Oxford undergraduate to take Russian in his final examination, in 1906, and appointed Reader in Russian at Oxford in 1910, asked at the beginning of his short book entitled, The Southern Slavs: ‘At the outbreak of this war one often heard the question, “What have we to do with Serbia?” and to such a question it could until the end of July 1914 with a considerable amount of truth have been answered, “Nothing” ’.17 The perception of Serbia, however, quickly changed:  the Chancellor of the Exchequer and future wartime Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, for instance, spoke of the ‘dignity’ and ‘valour’ of its people,18 and a whole range of titles was soon published which discussed the plight of the Serbian people.19 As the war progressed a number of longer and more substantial works on Serbian and Balkan history were published, which served to raise awareness of the plight of the Balkan peoples and the complexities of their histories.20 Serbia came to be seen, in the words of the army chaplain and historian and Fellow of Queens’ College, Cambridge, R. G. D. Laffan (1887–​1972), as ‘one of the gateways to civilized Europe’. In his lectures The Guardians of the Gate which borrowed their title from a speech of Lloyd George and which were originally given to British forces in Salonica fighting along with Serbs he wrote:

69

Serbian Church in the First World War 69 Despite their unhappy divisions and their weakness in numbers they have never ceased to struggle against the barbarisms of Turkestan and Berlin, which at different times have threatened to overflow the Western nations and the Mediterranean lands.21 Shortly after the outbreak of war more practical steps were taken with the founding of the Serbian Relief Fund (1914), which was followed in subsequent years by the Yugoslav Committee (1915), and the Serbian Society of Great Britain (1916). The tea magnate Thomas Lipton was involved in Red Cross relief in Serbia in early 1915, writing about his experiences immediately afterwards in a passionate pamphlet The Terrible Truth About Serbia.22 Even the orthography of the word ‘Serbia’ changed rapidly from ‘Servia’ after the outbreak of war, as Serbia’s tragic but heroic past became more celebrated. In this context, the American cultural historian Paul Fussell observed: ‘once the war began that designation [Servia] for a friendly country wouldn’t do  –​it was too suggestive of servility. Sometime between August, 1914, and April, 1915, the name of the country was quietly “raised” by the newspapers to Serbia, and Serbia it has remained’.23 Large numbers of Englishmen and women went to serve in Serbia, the most famous of whom was probably Lady Louise Paget (1881–​1958), wife of the British representative in Serbia, Sir Ralph Paget, who had earlier set up a hospital in Belgrade during the First Balkan War in 1912–​13.24 Some made the journey to Serbia in at the service of the church.25 A well-​known example is Percy Dearmer (1867–​1936), Anglo-​Catholic vicar of St Mary’s, Primrose Hill, and the leading hymnodist of his generation, who went to serve as chaplain to the British Hospital Mission. He responded to the call of Herbert Bury (1853–​1933), Bishop of North and Central Europe, who wrote a letter to The Times on 25 March 1915 headed ‘A Call from Serbia’.26 Dearmer called upon Metropolitan Dimitrije Pavlović (1846–​1930) and also stayed with the Bishop of Niš. His wife Mabel (1872–​1915) worked with Mabel St Clair Stobart (1862–​1954) at the hospital on the racecourse above the city of Kragujevac, which had once again become the capital of Serbia.27 She died of typhus fever and was given a funeral conducted according to both the English and Serbian rites in the cathedral. She is buried in Kragujevac beside two other British medical staff who had served with the Serbian Relief Fund, Dr Elizabeth Ross and Sister Lorna Ferriss.28 What was true about history and politics was also the case for the church:  in 1914, despite the best efforts of many predominantly Anglo-​ Catholic enthusiasts such as Henry Joy Fynes-​Clinton (1875–​1959),29 afterwards vicar of St Magnus the Martyr in London and a somewhat eccentric polemicist for papalism as well as Eastern Orthodoxy, and Athelstan Riley (1858–​1945), a prominent layman and hymnodist, there was a general ignorance of the Eastern Churches in the Church of England. To remedy this deficiency, the Anglican and Eastern Churches’ Association for Promoting Intercommunion between the Anglican and Eastern-​Orthodox Churches,

70

70  Serbian Church in the First World War which had been founded in 1906, amalgamated with the older Eastern Churches’ Association (founded by J. M. Neale in 1864) in October 1914. The new organization worked hard through the First World War to support the cause of the Serbian church through a programme of education, as well as by promoting practical initiatives, including visits by Serbian church leaders.30 Fr Nicolaj Velimirović (1880–​1956),31 afterwards Bishop of Ziča, and then of Ohrid and Bitola, for instance, visited England in October 1915, lecturing at St Margaret’s Church, Westminster Abbey on Serbian religion and on Reunion. He predicted ‘the great influence of the British Empire’ would have ‘for justice and liberty, if its future policy was founded upon Christian principles’.32 In December he gave an address in the Chapter House at Canterbury Cathedral before the archbishop on ‘England and Serbia’.33 In the collection of addresses, Archbishop Randall Davidson provided a preface: The presence of Father Nicholai Velimirovic in England during the last few months has brought to the many circles with which he has been in touch a new message and appeal enforced by a personality evoking an appreciation which glows more warmly the better he is known.34 In early 1916 Velimirović gave an address, ‘For Cross and Freedom’, at Holy Trinity Church, Stroud Green in North London before the Mayor of Hornsey where he likened what he regarded as the barbarism of the Ottomans with the heathenism of Africa: ‘At the time when Livingstone took civilisation to Africa’, he claimed, ‘Servia was ruled by a power darker than Africa ever knew’.35 He expressed his gratitude for the work of those who had come to the aid of Serbia: ‘God save the gracious King of England and God save all the sons of England who are now fighting for their little brothers in Serbia’. The service concluded with the singing of the Serbian national anthem.36 A third lecture, ‘Serbia at Peace’ was given at the University of Cambridge in the presence of the Vice-​Chancellor.37 A  final lecture entitled ‘Serbia in Arms’ was delivered before English troops, in which Velimirović develops racial themes at some length and with bitter irony as he emphasizes the barbarity of the Germans: ‘England betrayed the White Race!’ So exclaimed the other day Herr Dernburg, the former German minister for the colonies. Why? Because England mobilised all the races, including the black and yellow, Negroes, Indians, Maoris and Japanese, against the Germans. Herr Dernburg thinks that England has very much damaged European civilisation by so doing. That is a very curious conception of the present world situation. I could reply to Herr Dernburg’s objection: First, the history of mankind does not report that the Negroes enslaved anybody and kept him enslaved through a bloody regime five

71

Serbian Church in the First World War 71 hundred years long as the Turks, the German allies, did with the Balkan Christians. Second, I never have been told that the Japanese are more barbarous people than the Magyars. Third, I doubt very strongly that there is any madman in the world who will even try to make a comparison between the noble soul of India and a blood-​thirsty subject of Ferdinand of Coburg. And fourth, if Kaiser William with the Prussian junkers should govern Europe through the superman’s philosophy and Krupp’s industry, let us hurry to open the door of Europe as soon as possible for the Chinese and Japanese, for Indians and Negroes, and even for all the cannibals, the innocent doves, who need more time to eat up one fellow-​man with their teeth than a trained Prussian needs to slaughter ten thousand by help of his ‘kultur’.38 Overall, Velimirović’s lectures present a comprehensive partisan introduction to the history of Serbia as well as a patriotic call to arms. Although he recognizes the many sins of Serbia, at the same time he portrays its enemies (including Turkey and Bulgaria) in the darkest possible light. He concluded his Cambridge lecture on a stirring note: Enslaved in Serbia, dispersed as the refugees are all over the world, we pray to the God of Justice, now as always. Our prayer means our hope. The Kaiser’s subjects and the Bulgarian slaves can kill everything in Serbia –​and the purpose of their coming into Serbia is killing –​but they never can kill our hope. Martyred Serbia, your loyal ally, oh noble sons and daughters of Great Britain, is now silent and powerless. … I am sure everyone of you will do his best to redeem Serbia.39 Following Velimirović’s tour, for the remainder of 1916 there was a concerted effort across the whole of the Church of England to raise the profile of the Serbian Church and of Serbia more generally. This was aided by visits of other distinguished guests including Crown Prince Alexander and Archbishop Dimitrije Pavlović (1846–​1930) of Belgrade, who visited in April and May 1916,40 attending services at St Paul’s Cathedral and Westminster Abbey in London and visiting the famous Anglican sisterhood at Clewer in Windsor, as well as Oxford.41 He addressed the Anglican and Eastern Churches’ Association at Sion College, London, becoming one of the Association’s patrons. Velimirović accompanied him and acted as translator. Archbishop Dimitrije offered thanks for the witness of the doctors and nurses in Serbia as well as noting that ‘the glory of Christianity was in the Union of the Churches’.42 When he returned to England in 1917, Nicolaj preached at the statutory (i.e. regular Sunday) service in St Paul’s on 22 July, an event which was unprecedented in such a prominent church. He was also able to celebrate

72

72  Serbian Church in the First World War the eucharist in Pullan’s chapel at St John’s College, Oxford for the exiled Serbian and Romanian students who had by that stage arrived in Oxford.43 In a glowing retrospective assessment after the war the Serbian diplomat and Anglophile, Ćedomilj Mijatović (1842–​1932), noted that Fr Nicolaj was ‘a true Serb’:  ‘to hear him was to hear Serbia speaking. Serving his country, he had served also higher ideals. There could be no true League of Nations without a League of Churches’.44 Some Serbians, it would seem, left a major impression on the Church of England.

Kosovo Day, 1916 Proposals were made to keep 28 June 1916 as Kosovo Day throughout the country. This was the day on which Serbians remembered the bloody battle in 1389 between Prince Lazar and Sultan Murad which led to the loss of Serbia to the Ottomans. It was organized by a Committee spearheaded by Fynes-​ Clinton and the historian R.  W. Seton-​ Watson (1879–​ 1951), honorary secretary of the Serbian Relief Fund.45 A  lecture was read out in 12,000 schools across the country, and a film was shown in numerous cinemas, to raise awareness of Serbia and the Serbian church. The intention was to ‘interpret to the people of Great Britain the place that Serbia has in civilisation, in the arts and religion; the part that she has taken in history and will certainly take in the future of Eastern Europe; and lastly the place she must take in the hearts of those who love her simplicity and know her greatness’.46 In addition, letters were sent to all churches and chapels asking for support. The events culminated in a service held in St Paul’s Cathedral on Kosovo Day itself,47 where Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury preached a rousing sermon which spoke of the ‘Asiatic invaders’ who had occupied the ‘Serbian crossroads’, depriving her of freedom. Despite years of oppression, however, ‘her hope has been indestructible’ and might issue after the war in a new federation grounded in common sorrow.48 By all accounts, the service itself was very moving: ‘all hearts were deeply stirred by the moving and pathetic sound of the voices of 300 refugee boys under the dome singing in their national tongue the hymn which they had last heard amid the horrors of the great retreat through the mountains’.49 In a report published the following year, the Kossovo Day Committee noted that ‘30,000 copies of the Serbian National Anthem, with English words, were printed and distributed, and numerous post card reproductions of Mr. Bernard Partridge’s cartoon “Heroic Serbia,” from “Punch” ’.50 The Serbian cause attracted widespread support. The well-​ known writer, G.  K. Chesterton, at the time still an Anglican, who shortly after the outbreak of war had written an account of ‘The Serbs in History’ in the Illustrated London News,51 wrote a popular article in the Daily News to coincide with the Kosovo Day celebration, entitled ‘The Thing Called a Nation’. ‘Serbia’, he held, ‘must be called the eldest brother of the Alliance’,

73

Serbian Church in the First World War 73 because she possesses ‘that particular spirit which remembers a defeat rather than a victory … Kossovo of the Serbians towers in history as the most tragic of such instances of memory’.52 Earlier in the war he had written that Serbia ‘is a symbol of nearly all the crucial ideas of this conflict’.53 After the Kosovo service in 1916 Seton-​Watson noted, again reflecting on the spelling of Serbia, that it ‘had succeeded in transforming the blood-​stained and murderous Servia of John Bull into the transfigured and martyred Serbia of St Paul’s and Kossovo’.54

Pullan’s lectures At the same time, Leighton Pullan, together with a number of other English churchmen, sought to make the practices and theology of the Russian and Serbian churches better known in England. Pullan had earlier been involved in correspondence with Mijatović, who served as Serbian Ambassador before the war and continued to live in London. Mijatović, who was also a prominent churchman and even a candidate for the archbishopric of Skopje, had responded to a lecture of Pullan’s on church reunion in 1909. Since the question of reunion had been opened, he held, ‘it should not be abandoned until the final solution has been found’.55 A committed advocate of reunion, Pullan gave a large number of lectures on Orthodoxy during and after the war, even if he never claimed to be an expert on the Eastern Church. For instance, speaking in 1916, shortly after the death of W. J. Birkbeck (1859–​1916),56 who had been one of the towering figures in the Eastern Churches’ Association and who ‘above all others was able to explain the religion of the Slavs to English people and to explain the English Church to Slavonic people’, Pullan noted his own lack of competence to speak, since he had never been in either Russia or Serbia.57 Nevertheless, his many lectures, which follow a similar general pattern, go into significant detail on contested issues between the Eastern and Western churches including the filioque, eucharistic doctrine, and orders. In his lectures Pullan was clear that the Orthodox churches were anything but the static timeless bodies of the popular imagination, but had developed in ways not dissimilar to the Church of England. Indeed, he felt that they even expressed something of the Anglican via media. Consequently, in an undated lecture on ‘the Possibility of Union between the Anglican and Eastern Churches’, Pullan noted that the ‘present theology of the Orthodox Church … dates from the reformation, like that of Western Europe. And here we note at once a resemblance to Anglican doctrine. As the XXXIX Articles were an effort to find the path between Rome on the right hand and the new born sects, on the left, so the Russo Greek confessions of faith are an attempt to retain and mark out that middle path’.58 The national churches of the East could thus provide useful allies for the national churches of the West.

74

74  Serbian Church in the First World War In another lengthy wartime lecture,59 Pullan offered a detailed outline of the distinctive theology of eastern orthodoxy, concluding with a discussion of what he called ‘some misconceptions of the Eastern Orthodox Church which were lately current in England’, which he blamed on enemy propaganda: Information concerning the Eastern Church has sometimes come from German sources, and I remember that before this war I read in one or two German books angry and contemptuous references to the idea of friendliness between the Russian and the English Church. This friendliness was suspected and disliked, and doubtless it was favourable to modern German policy. But whatever the source of these misconceptions, it is high time that they were condemned to death. Pullan sought to dispel some of these common errors, dismissing the view, for instance, that the Russian Tsar any more than the English King acts as a Pope, before showing how much the Eastern Church had developed through the nineteenth century. He returned to this point in other lectures. For example, soon after the war, he spoke of the ‘fantastic phrases’ that ‘expressed the average English opinion of thirty years ago’ such as: ‘ “The unchanging East”, “the petrified Eastern Churches”, “the stereotyped forms of Byzantine art” ’. What the war had shown, he claimed, was that ‘the East changes in catastrophes’. Consequently, he concluded: We must lay aside the idea that Eastern Christianity does not move. It sent missions to the Japanese and to the Tartars. It was affected by the Reformation. It is affected by more recent thought. … Few sermons are fresher than some that have been printed in Serbian.60 In one of his wartime lectures he went on to emphasize the importance of the Orthodox Church as a bastion against militant Islam, which was quite different from the common misapprehension of Islam demonstrated in ‘calculated chivalry which a Turkish officer shows a wounded British soldier’. This Romantic ideal, according to Pullan, served only to blind ‘many Englishmen to the fiendish cruelty which the Turk, like his Asiatic cousin, the Turkaman, displays towards an inferior and a subject’.61 The example of Serbia’s national myth enshrined in the act of remembrance of the Battle of Kosovo, Pullen held, had taught us the importance of historical imagination since it was all too easy to forget ‘how very nearly, Europe was submerged by the hordes of Arabia and the steppes’. ‘These hard facts’. he went on, ‘we have forgotten like an old dream’. He continued in especially lyrical fashion: And Kossovo Day tells us of the indomitable spirit of a race that could not possibly forget. Outwardly this day in 1389 seemed to be a drawn battle. Later it proved to be a defeat, for the Serbs could not permanently

75

Serbian Church in the First World War 75 continue to struggle. Later it proved not a defeat but a discipline. The Serbians were not morally defeated. The memorable day roused within them the hope of ultimate victory for their faith and for their country. We cannot witness what they owed that hope. We cannot consent to see Serbia torn out of this world’s book of life. He continued with equally strong language to claim that in addition ‘Russia and Serbia [have] been a defence of hope against Eastern barbarism and against’ what he called ‘Mohammed’s bastard mixture of an ignorant Judaism and a perverted Christianity’. In short, he concluded, ‘[t]‌he Slavs silently preach to us of the dignity of suffering and the power of faith in the things that are unseen. … Serbs and Russians have not flinched or wavered. They were not to be bought or to be frightened’. The example of Serbia was thus proof to the English church that ‘it is possible to suffer and in spite of suffering and defeat to have the heart at liberty. And the nation that is capable of these things deserves the best that we can give’.62 In a post-​war lecture Pullan continued to emphasize the importance of ecumenism with the East, in part as a way of ensuring the long-​term defeat of German liberalism. Part of the inspiration behind the attempts to establish a Serbian Orthodox house of studies in Oxford which emerged under the inspiration of Fynes-​Clinton, Pullan and other Anglo-​Catholics towards the end of the War, was undoubtedly the effort to counter the influence of liberalism and materialism on seminarians in Eastern Europe, which had become more pressing after the Bolshevik revolution.63 The house in Oxford was to be, as Pullan put it, an antidote to the poisonous influence which for a generation has been exercised by Continental Universities upon the so-​called ‘intellectuals’ of Eastern Europe. In bygone days we were able to enjoy the fruits of Christianity and civilisation because the swords of the Mongols and Turks were blunted on the bodies of Eastern Christians who kept the faith. Today the remnant of the Eastern Church is threatened by organized materialism and Bolshevism. We have a debt to pay. And justice, which is no other thing than charity, tells us what debt is due.64 Similarly, Pullan noted in an extensive undated lecture on ‘The Eastern Orthodox Church’ that an alliance with the East could help the Church of England resist what he regarded as the watered down religion of the liberals which he felt had almost degenerated into something resembling Islam. In a striking passage he wrote: Some time ago the now Serbian bishop, Dr Velimirovic told me that when he was at the University of Jena he heard a lecture of Professor Haeckel, in which Haeckel urged that the best religion for Germans was Mohammadanism.65 Few of us are likely to become Moslems. But

76

76  Serbian Church in the First World War a Mohammadanized Christianity is at our own doors. If Jesus was only a notable prophet who made the best possible revelation of the truth, or if, as some suggest, he was even less than that, and his teaching is only a spiritual landmark and not our spiritual goal, what then? If we reject the truth that he is the eternal Son of God, His atonement, His Church, His sacraments, all sink to the level of the institutions of Islam, the institutions of a prophet who made serious mistakes.66 Ecumenism with the churches of the East, according to Pullan, might even rescue Anglicanism from what he called ‘the religion of the average Englishman’ which had become a vague theism, coloured with semi-​Christian sentimentalism, with no clear belief in the incarnation, and therefore no clear belief as to the Atonement and the Church and the Sacraments. As the Creed is, so the character will be. A vague shadowy Christ will bring a character unhallowed by the cross.67 Orthodoxy consequently presented a great defence against what Pullan and other Anglo-​Catholics regarded as the reduced Christ of Germany.

Conclusion There is obviously much more that can be said about the relationships between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Church of England during and immediately after the First World War:  what I  have discussed in this chapter, which draws in part on Pullan’s unpublished papers, sheds new light on the ways in which changing perceptions of Serbia influenced the development of English theology during the First World War. What is most important to stress, by way of conclusion, is the close connection between the politics of war and the development of theology and ecumenism. As Fr Nicolaj Velimirović noted on his return to England after the armistice: Even amid the destruction of the war, spiritual men discerned the germs of good for the future. The bards and spiritual seers of Serbia had foretold the help of a great kingdom in the west; they looked to Rome and to Canterbury; and they were conscious of essential unity.68 As I  hope I  have shown, that essential unity was in part a by-​product of Anglican disunity and partisanship which built on the opportunity presented by the rapid collapse of theological liberalism after 1914 on account of its guilt by association with the belligerent religion of Prussian Teutonism as I  have discussed through the course of this book. This approach to ecumenism as a

77

Serbian Church in the First World War 77 common front against liberalism was perhaps not without its influence on the famous Appeal of the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican bishops in 1920.69

Notes 1 The uncatalogued Pullan Papers are in Pusey House Library, Oxford (PHL). This sermon is in Box 6. Some folios are numbered. 2 Pullan Papers, PHL, Box 6, fols 5–​6. 3 Pullan Papers, PHL, Box 6, fols 8–​9. 4 See Mark D. Chapman, The Coming Crisis:  The Impact of Eschatology on Theology in Edwardian England (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), ch. 6. 5 Pullan Papers, PHL, Box 1, item 6, fol. 10. 6 I have discussed this in relation to Anglo-​Catholic–​Roman Catholic relationships around the time of the First Vatican Council in Mark D. Chapman, The Fantasy of Reunion: Anglicans, Catholics, and Ecumenism 1833–​1882 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), esp. ch. 5. 7 I have no intention on commenting on the causes of the First World War: what is important to note is that different commentators seem agreed that Serbia played a major, if not the major, role in the outbreak of hostilities in 1914. The most complex account is Christopher Clark, The Sleepwalkers:  How Europe Went to War in 1914 (London: Penguin, 2013), esp. chs 1, 5, 7, 10 for Serbia’s role; Margaret Macmillan, The War that Ended Peace: How Europe Abandoned Peace for the First World War (London: Profile Books, 2013), esp. chs 18 and 19 for Serbia’s role. See also Norman Stone, World War One: A Short History (London: Penguin, 2008), ch. 1. 8 See below, Chapters  5–​ 7. See also Mark D. Chapman, Bishops, Saints and Politics (London: T & T Clark, 2007), ch. 8; Thomas A. Langford, In Search of Foundations (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1969), chs 5 and 6. 9 See Keith Clements, Lovers of Discord:  Twentieth-​ Century Theological Controversies in England (London: SPCK, 1988), ch. 3. 10 Manchester Guardian, 1 August 1914, 9. Four others added their names shortly afterwards. See Manchester Guardian, 3 August 1914, 9. 11 Quoted in Dominic Hibberd, The First World War (London: Macmillan, 1990), 27. 12 On British perceptions of the Balkans, see Maria Todorova, Imagining the Balkans, second edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), esp. 118–​22. See also Bogoljub Šijaković, ‘A Critique of Balkanistic Discourse: Contribution to the Phenomenology of Balkan “Otherness” ’, in Bogoljub Šijaković, The Presence of Transcendence:  Essays on Facing the Other through Holiness, History, and Text (Los Angeles and Belgrade: Sebastian Press, 2013), 153–​81. 13 Leighton Pullan, New Testament Criticism during the Past Century (London: Longmans, 1907), 31. See above, Chapter 3. 14 See Sidney Dark, Mackay of All Saints (London: The Centenary Press, 1937). 15 Church Times, 9 July 1915, 46. 16 On Serbia and the First World War, see Andrej Mitrović, Serbia’s Great War (London: Hurst and Company, 2007) and Mira Radojević and Ljubodrag Dimić, Serbia in the Great War:  1914–​ 1918 (Belgrade:  Srpska Književna Zadruga/​ Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals, 2014). More generally, see David Dutton, The Politics of Diplomacy: Britain and France in the Balkans in the First World War (London: I. B. Tauris, 1998). 17 Nevill Forbes, The Southern Slavs (London: Oxford University Press, 1914–​15), 3. Forbes produced a Serbian Grammar with Dragutin Subotić (Oxford:  The Clarendon Press, 1918). See Gerald Stone, ‘Forbes, Nevill (1883–​1929)’, Oxford

78

78  Serbian Church in the First World War Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) at www.oxforddnb.com/​view/​article/​39408 (accessed 8 Feb 2016). 18 David Lloyd George, ‘Serbia and Austria’, in Garland Greever (ed.), War Writing (New York: The Century Co., 1919), 278–​80. 19 Sir Valentine Chirol, Serbia and the Serbs (London:  Oxford University Press, 1914); Nevill Forbes, The Southern Slavs. G. M. Trevelyan, The Servians and Austria (London:  Wyman and Sons, 1914). See also Spenser Wilkinson, ‘The Question of Servia’, in Spenser Wilkinson (ed.), August 1914: The Coming of the War (London: Oxford University Press, 1914–​15), 7–​14. 20 See Nevill Forbes, Arnold J. Toynbee, David Mitrany, David G. Hogarth, The Balkans:  a History of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1915). On Serbia see also Harold W. V. Temperley, History of Serbia (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1917), and R. G. D. Laffan, The Guardians of the Gate:  Historical Lectures on the Serbs (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1918). 21 Laffan, The Guardians of the Gate, 3. 22 Sir Thomas Lipton, The Terrible Truth About Serbia (London: British Red Cross Society, 1915). 23 Paul Fussell, The Great War and Modern Memory (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975), 175. 24 See W. Mead, ‘With a British Hospital in Serbia –​the Experiences of Lady Paget’s Unit at Skopje’, Worlds Work 26 (1915):  243–​58; see also Milan Radonovic, ‘British Medical Missions in Serbia 1914–​1915’, The London Philatelist 121 (June 2012): 170–​82. 25 See Mitrović, Serbia’s Great War, 111–​12. See Monica Krippner, The Quality of Mercy: Women at War Serbia 1915–​18 (Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1980) and, more generally, Christine E. Hallett, Veiled Warriors: Allied Nurses of the First World War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), esp. ch. 3. 26 Donald Gray, Percy Dearmer:  A  Parson’s Pilgrimage (Norwich:  Canterbury, 2000), 97–​109; Nan Dearmer, The Life of Percy Dearmer (London: The Book Club, 1941), 192–​203. See also ‘The War and the Church in Servia’ in The Guardian (8 July 1915), 633. 27 See Mabel St Clair Stobart, The Flaming Sword in Serbia and Elsewhere (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1916). 28 See the notice in The Times, 15 July 1915; see also Anglican and Eastern Association for promoting Intercommunion between the Anglican and Eastern-​ Orthodox Churches, Sixth report: October 1914–​March 1921, 46–​7. See Anne Powell, Women in the War Zone:  Hospital Service in the First World War (Stroud: The History Press, 2009), 389. 29 A. T. John Salter, The Anglican Papalist: A Personal Portrait of Henry Joy Fynes-​ Clinton (London: The Anglo-​Catholic History Society, 2012). 30 Anglican and Eastern Association for promoting Intercommunion between the Anglican and Eastern-​Orthodox Churches, Sixth report (October 1914–​ March 1921). A slightly modified version was published as: The Anglican and Eastern Churches: A Historical Record 1914–​1921 (Published for the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1921). 31 Velimirović became probably the most celebrated Serbian church leader of the twentieth century and has been referred to as the ‘New Chrysostom’. He was sent to Dachau Concentration Camp during the Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia and spent the last years of his life in exile in the USA. Despite allegations of anti-​ Semitism, he was canonized in 2003 by the Serbian Synod of Bishops. For an appraisal of the problematic legacy of Velimirović, see Jovan Byford,

79

Serbian Church in the First World War 79 Denial and Repression of Antisemitism: Post-​Communist Remembrance of the Serbian Bishop Nikolaj Velimirovicˊ (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2008). 32 Anglican and Eastern Association for promoting Intercommunion between the Anglican and Eastern-​Orthodox Churches, Sixth report, 38–​48. He was to give the Lenten addresses at the same venue the following year: published in 1916, Nicolai Velimirović, The Religious Spirit of the Slavs: Three Lectures Given in Lent at St. Margaret’s, Westminster, Sermons On Subjects Suggested by the War, Third Series (London: Macmillan, 1916). 33 ‘England and Serbia’, in Nicholai Velimirović, Serbia in Light and Darkness, with a Preface by the Archbishop of Canterbury (London: Longmans, 1916), 3–​23. 34 Randall Davidson, Preface in Velimirović, Serbia in Light and Darkness, xi. 35 The Guardian, 20 January 1916, 49. This is not recorded in the published version in Velimirović, Serbia in Light and Darkness, 24–​47. 36 The Guardian, 20 January 1916, 49. 37 ‘Serbia at Peace’ in Velimirović, Serbia in Light and Darkness, 48–​73. 38 ‘Serbia in Arms’ in Velimirović, Serbia in Light and Darkness, 74–​103, here 94–​5. 39 ‘Serbia at Peace’, 72–​3. 40 The Guardian, 19 April 1916, 354. 41 Church Times, 5 May 1916. 42 The Guardian, 4 May 1916, 394. 43 Anglican and Eastern Association, Sixth report, 39. 44 Anglican and Eastern Association, Sixth report, 43. 45 See The Guardian, 29 June 1916, 565. 46 Cited in Salter, Anglican Papalist, 64. 47 On the celebration of Kosovo Day, 1916, see Thomas A. Emmert, Serbian Golgotha: Kosovo, 1389 (Boulder: East European Monographs, 1990), 135–​7. 48 In The Guardian, 13 July 1916, 615. 49 Anglican and Eastern Association, Sixth report, 47. 50 In F. W. Harvey (ed.), The Lay of Kossovo: Serbia’s Past and Present (1389–​1917) (London: Kossovo Day Committee, 1917), 36. 51 G. K. Chesterton, ‘The Serbs in History: Harnack and Teutonism, Again’, The Illustrated London News, 10 October 1914, in G. K. Chesterton, Collected Works (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986–​), vol. 30, 175–​6. 52 G. K. Chesterton, ‘The Thing Called a Nation: The Spiritual Issue of the War’, The Daily News, 28 June 1916, in F. W. Harvey (ed.), The Lay of Kossovo, 32–​ 5. Other titles published in support of Serbia were Sir Arthur Evans, ‘Serbia’s Greatest Battle’, Times, 28 June 1916, in The Lay of Kossovo, 18–​20; Charles Oman, ‘An Old Treason Against Christendom’, in The Lay of Kossovo, 5–​10. 53 G. K. Chesterton, ‘On Rescuing the Serbs’, The Illustrated London News, April 15, 1916, in G. K. Chesterton, Collected Works (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986–​), vol. 30, 411. See William M. Klimon, ‘Chesterton, Kossovo of the Serbians, and the Vocation of the Christian Nation’, The Chesterton Review, 20:1 (1994): 41–​53. 54 Cited in Hugh and Christopher Seton-​Watson, The Making of a New Europe: R. W. Seton-​Watson and the Last Years of Austria-​Hungary (London: Methuen, 1981), 175. 55 Cited in S. G. Markovich, ‘Anglophiles in Balkan Christian States, 1862–​1920’, Balcanica (2010): 95–​145 (111). 56 See Michael Hughes, ‘The English Slavophile: W. J. Birkbeck and Russia’, The Slavonic and East European Review 82 (2004): 680–​706. 57 Pullan Papers, PHL, Box 1, fol. 6. 58 Pullan Papers, PHL, Box 1, notebook 10, p. 4.

80

80  Serbian Church in the First World War 59 Pullan Papers, PHL, Box 11. 60 Pullan Papers, PHL, Box 2, ‘The Church of England in its relationship to the Orthodox Churches of the East’, printed lecture, undated, p. 1. 61 Pullan Papers, PHL, Box 11. 62 Pullan continued to emphasize the resilience of the Eastern Orthodox Church after the war. It was ‘a Church which is at his moment crucified and bleeding … in Moscow, Smyrna and Constantinople’. Pullan Papers, PHL, Box 4, No. 32: Manuscript of ‘The Eastern Orthodox Church’, fol. 1. 63 See Salter, Anglican Papalist, 65–​9. Fynes-​Clinton was to visit Serbia in 1921. 64 Pullan Papers, PHL, Box 2, ‘The Church of England in its relationship to the Orthodox Churches of the East’, printed lecture, undated, 11. 65 Velimirović mentions this in the last of his St Margaret’s Lenten addresses, The Religious Spirit of the Slavs, 31. 66 Pullan Papers, PHL, Box 4, No. 32, ‘The Eastern Orthodox Church’, 18–​19. 67 Pullan Papers, PHL, Box 4, Fol. 32, ‘The Eastern Orthodox Church’, 39. 68 Pullan Papers, PHL, Box 4, Fol. 32, ‘The Eastern Orthodox Church’, 42. 69 See Charlotte Methuen, ‘An Account of the Making of the Appeal to All Christian People by George Bell and an Edition of the Redactions of the Appeal, with an Introductory Essay’ in Melanie Barber, Gabriel Sewell and Stephen Taylor (eds), From the Reformation to the Permissive Society:  A  Miscellany in Celebration of the 400th Anniversary of Lambeth Palace Library (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2010), 521–​64.

81

5 Anglo-​German theological relations in the First World War

German liberalism and truth1 On 25 April 1915 a less than subtle leaflet entitled ‘Safeguarded’ was published anonymously in Birmingham in response to the first use of gas on the Western Front. On the cover is a picture of three allied servicemen wearing gasmasks. Although the anonymous author was naturally shocked and appalled by the use of gas, he also sensed a danger far ‘more subtle than the poison gas’ and an enemy ‘more unscrupulous than the Kaiser’. This was the ‘poison gas of Modern Thought’ which, he claimed, had ‘spread its death-​dealing doctrines far and wide. Long before the war the German apostles of KULTUR launched upon this country (and others) their “Higher Critic” theories, poisoning the minds of men in regard to the divine Inspiration and Authority of Holy Scriptures’. This was the real poison gas, he went on, which was far worse than the mustard gas of the trenches, ‘which at the worst can kill the body and not destroy the soul. … One of the up-​to-​date methods by which [the Devil] seeks to deceive and destroy men is the poison-​gas method of Modern Thought’. But against this, the author continues, there is a powerful gasmask, namely, ‘The Word of THE TRUTH, The Gospel of your salvation’.2 Although this analogy may well be somewhat overdone, it is far from untypical of wartime reactions to German critical scholarship: the war was itself little more than the logical progression of the destruction of Christian truth exemplified by liberal theology. Another somewhat less overstated example is that of Arthur C. Champneys (1854–​1924), who wrote a pamphlet in 1915 with the bold title, ‘Criticism’ as made in Germany and Common Sense.3 ‘The line of thought and the arguments used against miracles, the sapping of at least the outworks of belief in the Incarnation or the Resurrection (as well as the practical denial of our Lord’s real deity)’, he wrote, ‘for the most part unquestionably hail from Germany’.4 He goes on to point to connections between the critical attitude towards Christianity and what he considers the lies promulgated by the German Government:

82

82  Theological relations during the War The clergy and the professors and learned men, with the rarest exceptions, are as the rest in accepting and repeating current falsehoods. And though all this has been accentuated by the War it is an older story than that.5 Champneys concludes his pamphlet with a broadside against the English liberal Churchmen: As in Germany pastors of the Lutheran communion and their teachers claim –​and are allowed –​to deny and undermine the received tenets of Christianity, whether as regards to the person of Christ or the historical facts of the Gospels, so a like history or licence is claimed by their disciples –​that very small minority of the clergy –​in England. … But it is perhaps natural that, in the process of ‘peaceful penetration’, German ethics should come to the aid of German theological speculations.6 Many others, from more Anglo-​Catholic backgrounds, were equally capable of linking liberal theological scholarship with the unbelieving German horde and made use of the same uncompromising rhetoric. Thus even before the First World War, J. Neville Figgis, a Mirfield Father and lecturer in Cambridge, detested what he called ‘the reduced Christianity dear to the Teutonic Savant’,7 which meditated on ‘emasculate immanence’.8 The most dangerous antichrist, Figgis remarked in a sermon preached a couple of years before the outbreak of war, is the … jejune parody of the Gospel Christ, which is the creation of academic pedantry and modern comfort. This boneless Christ of the German liberals, this ‘transient embarrassed phantom’ living in vain and dying in disillusion, is not only incapable of producing the mighty fact of the Christian Church, or the mightier one of the converted soul, but he cannot even maintain that lofty ideal which is by some supposed to be the sole residuum of Christianity.9 Having had greater foresight than many of the politicians in forecasting the outbreak of war, during the First World War Figgis returned to the theme of liberal scholarship, welcoming is rapid demise. In a sermon preached at London’s Grosvenor Chapel he claimed: ‘The intellectual baggage for life’s cabin passage, which a little while did duty, has been torpedoed’.10 And later in the same book of sermons, as if to rub the point home, he remarked: Much that we deemed so secure is gone, the serene and gracious harmonies of ten years back are not for us…The carnival of Flanders has put an end to it. Progress, with a capital P, was torpedoed by the man who sank the Lusitania.11

83

Theological relations during the War 83 In Oxford, too, Leighton Pullan, one of the leading defender of Anglo-​ Catholic orthodoxy against all-​comers, attacked what he called the ‘new religion’ of German liberal protestantism.12

William Sanday and German theology Theological liberalism was thus attacked from many quarters, and by the time of the outbreak of war such attacks had frequently become somewhat personal. Champneys’ pamphlet in particular is a clear assault on William Sanday (1843–​ 1920), Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford University, and one of the chief mediators of German theology into England.13 Sanday had a reputation as ‘a scrupulously fair man’ who, ‘in order to make sure he was doing full justice to his opponents … read everything that he could lay his hands on’.14 This approach was well exemplified in his work on the life of Christ where he assessed the vast literature from Germany from a cautious Anglican viewpoint.15 Sanday kept up a correspondence with many German theologians, including Ernst von Dobschütz16 and Friedrich Loofs,17 two figures who like himself stood between the theological camps of traditionalism and liberalism. Scholarship, according to Sanday, could not divide itself neatly into parties: a balanced opinion could not be achieved through an ‘either/​or’ but only through a ‘both/​and’. ‘I should have thought’, Sanday wrote to von Dobschütz on 30 October 1907, ‘there were many things on which one was obliged to say at once Yes and No’.18 His survey of scholarship in The Life of Christ in Recent Research thus subjects all opinions to critical treatment to achieve a balanced opinion. ‘While I agree more often with my own countrymen’, Sanday wrote, ‘I learn more from the Germans’. ‘With us’, he went on, ‘dashing but desultory raids are apt to take the place of what is in Germany the steady disciplined advance of a regularly mobilized army’.19 Over the years, however, Sanday gradually moved into the liberal camp, and by 1911 had made clear his distrust of what the historical method might yield, recognizing that ‘the uncertainties that remain when criticism has exhausted its resources prevent it from being wholly disentangled’.20 Sanday wrote in a similar vein to Albert Schweitzer on 31 Jan 1912, pointing to the inherent illogicality of reality: ‘[We] English are illogical people, and my chief doubt, if I may say so, in regard to your views is whether after all they do not press logic rather too hard. Does not nature itself seem to be illogical?’21 This drove him into a position of what he called ‘relativity’.22 Sanday secretly announced his conversion to the ‘Modernist cause’ in 1912,23 a year which also saw him siding with B.  H. Streeter over his controversial essay in Foundations.24 This created something of a scandal in Oxford. As Sanday confessed to Loofs on 3 May 1913: ‘I got into some little trouble with friends who are not prepared to go along with me’.25 Sanday’s theological reputation meant that he rapidly became the chief representative of liberal theology, and he was soon the object of many

84

84  Theological relations during the War scathing criticisms. His reputation for moderation, which had outlasted his mediating theology, could be most dangerous in alliance with the new theology. This was well observed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, who wrote privately to him on 27 Jan 1913, after Sanday had discussed publication of his new views: Your extraordinary modesty and unassertiveness, and your unreadiness to realise the weight which people attach to your words, may possibly lead you to underrate the gravity to the whole Church of any publication by you of the sort you have mentioned. I think you know me well enough to feel assured that I should not lightly (or at all) ask any man to conceal from his contemporaries deliberate opinions which he has carefully reached, and which the world is entitled to know. But when it is you who are the teacher, the effect of some pronouncement may be so enormous as to affect the whole church … so hold back from publishing … We are in the midst of a time of great flux and perplexity and people are nervous and (pardon the word) ‘jumpy’ to a degree that often depresses me.26 However, despite these words of caution Sanday entered vigorously into the controversies over the Creeds, becoming the most eloquent exponent of the liberal cause even as late as 1920.27 Shortly before the outbreak of war Sanday was engaged in vigorous controversy with his diocesan Bishop, Charles Gore. In an open letter to the people of his diocese (The Basis of Anglican Fellowship in Faith and Organisation) published on 7 April 1914, Gore called for the witness of the ancient and undivided church in all matters of interpretation of the Bible and for the expulsion of clergy refusing to assent to the Creeds. He was extremely critical of liberal scholarship.28 Sanday responded rapidly to Gore’s letter, publishing his own pamphlet on 13 May 1914,29 where he remarked that Gore’s damning mention of German scholarship … leads me to the further remark that Bishop Gore has either forgotten or deliberately taken no account of them. It is surely a fact of some significance that the Protestant scholars of the foremost nation of the world for penetrating thoughtfulness and technical knowledge, have arrived with a considerable degree of unanimity just at the kind of conclusions which the Bishop condemns. Yet Germany has been at work on these problems for more than a century past like a hive of bees. … I have not myself any fault to find with the German attitude, unless it is that it is rather too academic and has rather too much the vigour of the lecture-​room.30 Within months of the publication of this pamphlet, war broke out, and it comes as little surprise that theological liberalism and Germanism were

85

Theological relations during the War 85 quickly associated in the propaganda war. Indeed the above passage was cited directly by Champneys in his pamphlet31 as evidence of Sanday’s own culpability in the context of British accusations of German lies and war-​guilt. Among English theologians, however, Sanday was not unique in his high-​regard for German scholarship. Also important was the polymathic Essex Rector, Henry Latimer Jackson (1851–​1926), who had written on The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism in 1906. Later, in the Preface to his 1913 Cambridge Hulsean Lectures on eschatology, he remarked: Such as it is my book tells its own tale of continued indebtedness to German scholarship on the part of one who can never be unmindful of those highly-​prized friendships which bind him to the ‘Fatherland’ as to a second home.32 Similarly, Francis Crawford Burkitt,33 Norrisian Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, had a high regard for German scholarship, and, like Sanday, he was especially important in mediating Schweitzer’s work into England. Like Sanday and Jackson, he was a close friend of the church historian Ernst von Dobschütz, and was awarded an honorary doctorate from Breslau in 1911.34 All three figures maintained a lively correspondence with German theologians before, during and after the First World War, and, although all were to some extent sympathetic to the British cause, they nevertheless sought to distance themselves from popular anti-​Germanism, attempting to listen relatively impartially to the enemy as best they could.

Some theological responses to the outbreak of war After the outbreak of War, there was an initial shock which led to many different attempts from both sides to understand what had happened, and which in turn led to an abundance of pamphlets. Through the course of the War Sanday assumed the role as a mediator between English and German academics and managed to maintain personal relations with his friends in Germany. Indeed in many ways his willingness to listen to German propaganda of the most dubious kind closely parallels the theological method which he had outlined at the beginning of The Life of Christ: Those of us who make much use of German tools and who try to acknowledge adequately the debt they incur in doing so run the risk of becoming tedious to their own countrymen. The world is apt to grow weary of hearing Aristides called the Just. And yet, if one is constantly consulting Aristides, that is the least that is his due. On great problems, and from the point of view of research, it is a secondary merit in a book to be right.35

86

86  Theological relations during the War After the outbreak of war, Sanday wrote one of the first reasoned responses from the English academic community, and indeed throughout the war he attempted to keep abreast of German opinion and to retain some degree of objectivity about events by maintaining links with his German friends.36 Although he was surprised at the initial response of the German churchmen to the outbreak of war in their famous appeal ‘to the Evangelical Christians Abroad’37 against an ‘asiatic barbarism’, his own reply, The Deeper Causes of War,38 is remarkably eirenic, and he understands his duty to be to ‘weigh calmly and try to understand’.39 He regards most Germans as ‘quiet, peace-​ loving people’,40 in contrast to what he sees as the uncompromising perversion of the German character by Prussian militarism. The tone of the official Oxford response, which Sanday signed, was hardly less charitable, and pointed to the ­‘enormous output of the German universities in every department of scholarship’.41 The desire to protestantize the world by force, however, could not be shared by the Oxford signatories. Some had great hopes for these pamphlets. As Joseph Armitage Robinson (1858–​1933), Dean of Wells, wrote to Sanday on 18 September 1914:  A day of Enlightenment must dawn from our kind German friends. At present we can hardly hope to get at them; but Americans are interested in us and in them, and they will see that some at least of them get informed.42 The English Archbishops also produced a document, the ‘Archbishops’ reply to the German theologians’, which was widely circulated among the theological faculties, although it was not greeted with universal approval. Burkitt, for instance, refused to sign, thereby provoking a response directly from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson:43 Dear Professor Burkitt, Is it really necessary that your signature should be withheld from our document? Our object is less to convince the Germans –​that is impossible –​than to show the truth of our position and to help the Americans to understand it. It is far more in America than in Germany that we look for some effect of what we have written. I do feel that considering the weight which attaches to your name it would be a pity were the document to go out without your signature. But of course I must not push it unfairly. I am, yours very truly, Randall Cantuar. At the same time Burkitt, along with Latimer Jackson, signed a declaration against the War and both sought to continue their links with Germany by whatever means possible.

87

Theological relations during the War 87 For others, however, this willingness to listen to the enemy was merely corroborative evidence of the treacherous character of liberal theology. As W. B. Selbie, Principal of the Congregationalist Mansfield College, Oxford put it:  Already advantage is being taken of the present crisis by those whose fear of German theology is greater than their knowledge of it. They argue that British theology has been over-​germanized, and that, now that our eyes are opened to the true character of the German spirit, we had better have done with this obsession once and for all.44 Selbie felt that critical theology posed no great threat, but believed, along with one of the great Oxford figures of the nineteenth century, Mark Pattison, that although originating in Germany, it ‘belongs to Christendom’. He concludes his pamphlet with a bold plea for reconciliation with more enlightened thinkers.45 Similarly in Cambridge, F. J. Foakes-​Jackson, Dean of Jesus College, in the first University sermon preached after the outbreak of war on 8 October 1914, was equally worried lest the War should ‘serve as a sufficient pretext for a reaction against all modernism in religious thought and for the encouragement of the application of methods of scholarship to Christian problems’.46 Despite the risks of siding with the enemy, however, several theologians sought to keep up their contacts with their German friends as the war progressed.

Correspondence with Germany during the War Both Burkitt and Latimer Jackson in Cambridge, as well as Sanday in Oxford, were worried about von Dobschütz, who was their closest German friend and who had actually been planning to spend the summer of 1914 in Cambridge together with his mother. Eagerly seeking news, Latimer Jackson wrote to Burkitt on 1 October 1914:47 My dear Burkitt, I called at your house yesterday, in the hope that you had had news of von Dobschütz; this morning I have news of him –​and messages from him  –​in a letter from Mme Leeman of Leiden. She writes on behalf of her husband, who is ill; her letter (undated) bears the postmark of Sept. 26th. A letter had just come from von Dobschütz. There was an enclosure for me –​the Todesanzeige of a dear old German friend of mine on which Frau v. D. has just scribbled a greeting to us. I was to be told that letters, postcards, and printed matter addressed to you as well as to myself on July 31st have been returned to him. There follows the expression of a hope: ‘try to do something for the Germans who are not allowed to leave England’.

88

88  Theological relations during the War The inference is that both v.D.  and his mother were alive and well about a week ago; also that they were at Halle. As it still seems best to avoid direct communication I  am at once writing to Mme Leeman (Rijnsburgeweg 6B Leiden) asking her to tell v.D. that his messages have been received and passed on to you –​to give our love to his mother and himself. Ever yours sincerely, H. Latimer Jackson I am sending a p[ost].c[ard]. to Armitage Robinson about v.D. Shortly afterwards another letter reached Burkitt from James Hardy Ropes of Harvard, where von Dobschütz had been an exchange professor shortly before the war,48 which brought more news. Von Dobschütz had written to Ropes on 23 August: Mir ist dies Missverhältnis zu England persönlich besonders s­ chmerzlich: ich habe drüben viele Freunde. Wir waren zu August nach England eingeladen:  die zwei Namen stehen mit in der Cambridger Erklärung gegen den Krieg:  Burkitt und Latimer Jackson. Leider sind unsere Briefe an beide am 31. hier abgesandt, nicht mehr über die Grenze befördert worden, sondern nach langer Zeit an uns zurückgekommen. Ich ­wünschte ich könnte diesen Freunden Nachricht zukommen lassen, wie ich mich über ihre tapfere Erklärung gefreut habe. Ich glaube an die Aufrichtigkeit deutschfreundlicher Gefühle bei vielen Engländern und versuche dies auch hier zu verstehen, wo es natürlich jetzt schwer ist: das perfide Albion hat sich unserem deutschen Empfinden zu sehr eingeprägt. Leider wird diese Missstimmung auch lange nachwirken, komme es im übrigen wie es wolle. Wir werden nicht so leicht mit England Freundschaftsbesuche austauschen können. Ropes went on to point out that ‘[h]‌is whole letter was a vivid picture of conditions and feelings in Germany. He spoke especially of the way the people had rushed to service in the churches’. Ropes ended by expressing his own opinions about the situation: The effect of this terrific experience on the feelings and aspirations and religions of Europe is sure to be profound! God grant that it may be wisely directed. … I find it hard to persuade myself that the Germany of Enlightened professors and devout Christians can still exist! … I hope the proposal of a pamphlet by scholars setting forth the English ‘case’, as a concomitant to the German pamphlet, and for American readers, will not be carried up. There is no need of it. The German pamphlet (‘Truth about Germany’) is blistering and wholly inadequate (the author

89

Theological relations during the War 89 had not read the English White Paper) and a reply would do more harm than good … With warm regards Yours very truly, James Hardy Ropes. A response to the German manifesto, however, was soon drawn up by Gilbert Murray of Oxford, and was widely circulated (along with the German manifesto) among British academics with a covering letter, which is included in Burkitt’s papers.49 Again it appears that the main aim was to influence American public opinion: Confidential letter of manifesto to be signed. Wellington House, Buckingham Gate, London SW Confidential Dear Sir, The German manifesto enclosed has been widely signed by men of distinction in learning and science who, by their mere prestige, carry some influence in America and other neutral countries. It has therefore been thought desirable to draw up and issue a reasoned answer (of which a draft is enclosed) signed by some representative men of learning in Great Britain, especially those whose names will have weight abroad. You will understand that a document drawn up, however carefully, to represent the main opinion of a large number of independent and thoughtful people, must occasionally fail to express the exact feeling of any individual among them, but we hope that this will not prevent your giving your signature to a document which, in order to bear its due weight, ought to be as fully as possible representative of British Learning. Will you be so glad to address your reply to Professor Gilbert Murray at the above address? Yours faithfully, Clifford Allbutt, Frances Darwin, J.S. Haldane, F.J. Haverfield, D.G. Hogarth, A.S.Hunt, Gilbert Murray, George H.F. Nuttall, Wosler, William Ridgeway, W.R. Sorley. Throughout the War Sanday attempted to maintain his connections with his German friends, and although he was willing to criticize them for their readiness to listen to the propaganda from Berlin, he tried not to let this interfere with the friendship itself. Similarly, Latimer Jackson wrote to The Guardian at the beginning of November to say that he had had heard via a correspondent in Leiden to say that von Dobschütz is ‘himself ministering to British prisoners quartered in Halle. … He tells me that he is himself

90

90  Theological relations during the War ministering to their spiritual needs, and holding English services in the camp’.50 At the end of December,51 he wrote to Sanday with news of two long letters he had received from von Dobschütz. He had also managed to convey Sanday’s condolences to the family of Johannes Weiss,52 who had died shortly before. After news of the resulting reshuffle of professors, Jackson reports that … V. Dobschütz and Loofs thank you warmly for your kind messages. Loofs’ three sons are at the front –​so far all is well. Otto, the one you know, is an officer. Poor old v.D! Like the rest of them he calls evil good –​if not in word, by implication. The ‘brutality’ of our men is, for him beyond question. Sanday managed to keep up his correspondence partly directly, and partly through the mediation of Jackson, who sent Sanday’s pamphlets to Germany via a ‘Leyden friend’, presumably Mme Leeman.53 Latimer Jackson remarked in a letter to Sanday that there was apparently no difficulty in getting letters and books to Switzerland, and from there to Germany.54 By these means he sent copies of Sanday’s 1915 pamphlet, The Meaning of the War for Germany and Great Britain: An Attempt at Synthesis,55 to his ‘friend’ Martin Rade (1857–​ 1940), and his ‘intimate friend’, Adolf Jülicher (1857–​1938). The Revd Gustav Adolf Bienemann, Church of England Chaplain at Neuchâtel in Switzerland and a naturalized German, was also able to distribute the pamphlet in German-​ speaking Switzerland, and was responsible for giving copies to Arthur Titius at Göttingen (1864–​1936) and Gustav Jahn.56 Sanday also managed to keep up his correspondence with Friedrich Loofs, with whom he had been jointly responsible for editing The Constructive Quarterly, a periodical which grew out of the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910,57 and sent him a copy of the same pamphlet soon after its publication. The tone of Sanday’s 1915 pamphlet was patriotic:  ‘I was never so proud of my nation’, Sanday wrote, ‘as I  was in the first week of the war’. Nevertheless, unlike many of his contemporaries, he was prepared to listen to the German case and was sensitive to the matter of fairness to the enemy. Unlike most of his contemporaries, however, Sanday never failed to point to the positive aspects of German culture: it was ‘a noble nation for a time gone wrong’.58 Indeed, Sanday held, to fight Germany was somehow paradoxical: As Germany loved us, we are grieved; as she was fortunate, we rejoiced at it; as she was valiant, we honour her; but as she was ambitious, we are fighting her. There are tears for her love, joy for her fortune, honour for her valour, and war for her ambition.59 War with Germany was a last resort brought on by ‘severe pressure of honourable obligations’ to resist ‘Napoleonic tendencies’.60 Even in war,

91

Theological relations during the War 91 however, the German virtues were visible: ‘they go wrong with system and method on a great scale’.61 Similarly, he held, ‘when the Germans see their duty clearly marked out before them they will face it with all their natural tenacity, conscientiousness and courage’.62 Sanday concluded his pamphlet on an optimistic note: I do not doubt for a moment that in the end Germany will see her mistake. … We shall hail the penitent’s return. Some day the clouds of war will roll away like an evil dream.63 Many of Sanday’s friends wrote to him after the publication. For instance, Robert Bridges (1844–​1930),64 poet laureate and hymnodist, and Sanday’s friend since childhood days, expressed some reservations: I liked your pamphlet; and its learning and moderation –​But honestly I think that a less scrupulous use of the imagination w[oul]d get nearer to the truth. … As for Adolf von Harnack I suppose he is a very fine fellow, knowing nothing about him. I s[houl]d guess that his criticism of the Gospel was negligible –​Half these men are inkpots!65 Others, however, were far more positive. H.  R. Mackintosh (1870–​1936), Professor of systematic theology at New College, Edinburgh, who had studied in Marburg under Wilhelm Herrmann, responded far more positively. In a letter of 14 April 1915, which expresses something of his own distress, he wrote: My dear Dr Sanday, Perhaps you may by now find it somewhat tedious to be thanked for its [i.e. the pamphlet’s] judicial fairness: all the same it is goodwill. I find in it the best sort of moral support I get from the best American opinion; which, I do not hesitate to say, has from the outbreak of war been one of my greatest comforts. One is afraid of judging one’s own cause too favourably, and it is a great deal to realise that intelligent and earnest bystanders agree with one in the main. Your book belongs to a different category in the sense that it is British; but it breathes the same temper of sympathetic understanding. If it were not that I  fear even the best German minds would at present be closed to an angel from heaven, I should hope it might reach people like Loofs and Dobschuetz. Thank you very cordially indeed for letting me see it. I recall that when I last saw you, you were keenly alive to the European danger. There is no harm in saying now that I thought at the time that you overestimated the risks of mischief. But I was quite wrong. I sometimes have asked myself whether the Christian duty to see the best in other people –​or nations –​may not blind one to the facts! But at all events we can all join heartily and trustingly in the noble anticipations

92

92  Theological relations during the War with which your book concludes. One gets quite miserable to think that broken friendships with people like Herrmann may quite likely never be renewed. We are very military here, and have been all winter. Thousands of soldiers pass my house every week. I am glad to say New College has done particularly well. Out of 64 regular students we have 30 in the army  –​one has already fallen:  and 10 or more others have taken up the equally valuable and exhausting Y.M.C.A. work in camps. Amid so much excitement it is difficult to read or think … Something like a week ago I  had an interesting letter from Prof. Adams Brown of Union Seminary, New York, who is probably known to you. He says:  ‘I learned only a day or two ago that one of my German friends here, a highly intelligent man and a professor, really believes that it is the purpose of England to destroy the German nation. It seems to you, and men like you, impossible that such things can be believed, but I  have no doubt that he represents a very considerable section of thoughtful Germans. If it were possible for your Government to express in clear and unmistakable language the objects for which you are fighting, it would, I believe, be a very salutary thing. Prussian militarism is, we all recognize, a very unfortunate thing and ought to be destroyed, but to say, as has often been said, “we are going to fight until we destroy Prussian militarism” means as a matter of fact to the average German “we are going to fight until we have destroyed everything that Germany holds dear and reduce her to second-​rate power”. If this is not the purpose of England, as I feel sure it is not, will not the time soon come when some authoritative statement of the fact ought to be made?’ I have thought once or twice of extracting this part of his letter, and forwarding it to some of the powers that be. Do you think I might suitably put it before the Chief Whip, whom I know. With affectionate respect, Yours very truly, H.R. Mackintosh.66 There was also some German reaction to Sanday’s pamphlet. Latimer Jackson wrote to Sanday on 9 May 1915 with news that he had received letters from von Dobschütz and also from Adolf Deissmann (1866–​1937), who was later to play an important role in ecumenical relations after the War. The former thanked Sanday ‘with limitations’ for his pamphlet. Jackson went on to comment: There is nothing to complain of in the tone of this letter (ill informed gibes apart) as it points to individuals from whom (so to say) he has received so much kindness; and the ‘stets Ihr’ with which he finishes up is, I feel sure, significant of continued regard for old friends.

93

Theological relations during the War 93 Jackson then goes on to point out that Deissmann, in ‘a really nice letter’, had remarked:  ‘ich habe mit brennendem Interesse alles gelesen, nicht alles verstanden und nicht alles gebilligt’. Nevertheless he ‘begs “dem hochverehrten Senior-​ Kollegen besten Dank zu übermitteln”  ’. Jackson commented that ‘not going in for rejoinders, he makes really warm recognition of your “bona fides and bona voluntas” ’.67 A few days later Latimer Jackson wrote again to Sanday having received another letter from von Dobschütz who commented that ‘Loofs hat einen grossen Aufsatz unter den Feder. Ich habe keine Zeit dazu’.68 The tone, however quickly became more agitated, and by 29 June 1915, Latimer Jackson had received a ‘sarcastic’ letter from von Dobschütz, full of what he called ‘misinformation’. He wrote back giving him ‘a piece of my mind’: And necessity is now laid upon me in view of possible misapprehension over yonder of giving D.  (and through him, others) plainly to understand that, with much sorrow of heart I am in agreement not only with yourself but with the author of ‘J’accuse’ [a pamphlet outlining German atrocities]. My hope is that what I shall say to D. will not mean an abrupt close to our correspondence.69 In a long and eirenic letter to Loofs of 19 June 1915 Sanday outlined the purpose of his pamphlets, which he understood primarily as efforts to foster relations between the intellectuals of the warring nations: Dear Dr Loofs, It was a great pleasure to me when I heard that you were reviewing my pamphlet, and reviewing it at length. If I may say so, this –​or something like it –​was one of the hopes that hovered before me when I wrote it. This was what I said to myself: ‘Our two peoples are far apart. They are further apart than they ought to be. They are each so entrenched in their own position that neither can speak a word to the heart of the other. Attempts to do this on both sides are blown to the winds at once. The only hope is if two real friends bound by the ties of mutual regard and genuine goodwill, can come face to face with each other, and talk over these burning questions in the manner of friends’. That was what I said to myself. And in all the circle of my German acquaintance, there was no one with whom I was more likely to attain this than yourself. There was no one with whom I should more wish to sit down for a long quiet talk. The opportunity was the very best that could be offered me. Still I  must face the fact that our first ‘sitting’ (if I  may call it so) has not been a success. My pamphlet has not touched the right chord. The feelings it has excited in your mind are evidently not those which I should have wished to excite.

94

94  Theological relations during the War No doubt the task is exceedingly difficult. It seems to be even more difficult than I supposed. When our two peoples are at war, each individual member of them is apt to be in a state of nervous tension in which the slightest touch becomes painful. Something of this kind seems to have happened. It is true that I wrote in the first instance for my own countrymen. But, as you rightly observe, I was anxious at the same time to produce something which (as I expressed it) could be put into the hands of a German, without his feeling injured and insulted at every turn. But here is the pity of it. You acquit me of offending in the one way but not in the other. You are not (through your country) insulted, but you are ‘hurt’ (verletzt) more than I thought possible. And the manner of it was unfortunate. I am quite touched by the story as you tell it me –​ how you opened my pamphlet at the end, and your eye caught two or three expressions which for three whole days made you shrink from reading any more. No one could be more sorry than I am. And yet I must confess that even now, with your full explanations before me, I fail to understand, though I hope I can do a little to mitigate the shock which you received. We have indeed both of us to remember –​and you remind yourself, with that scrupulous considerateness which marks all that you have written –​that we are writing on behalf of nations that are at war. We each believe our own country to be in the right and the other to be in the wrong. Some allowance –​perhaps a rather large allowance –​has to be made on this ground in both cases… [The pamphlets] were written with some warmth of emotion. They were written with genuine, and indeed reverent, admiration for what Germany has been to us, and to me in particular, in the past. The attitude was most certainly that of one who was looking up, and not looking down … By perhaps half a dozen unfortunate expressions I have caused you to put a construction upon my book which is very different from what I hoped would be put upon it. In spite of this, I very greatly appreciate the patient and considerate hearing which you have given to me, though I can see between the lines that I have done little or nothing to shake the fixed ideas which are in your minds as in so many of your countrymen. It is very sad; and I am afraid that things have reached such a pass that every day they are going from bad to worse. The gulf between our two peoples is widening and not narrowing. If anything that you may write further should help to narrow it, you would be doing the greatest service, not to two nations alone, but to the world at large. In spite of all that happens contrariously in this world, I shall still ask you to believe me, My dear Dr. Loofs, Yours very sincerely, W. Sanday.70

95

Theological relations during the War 95 Although Sanday hoped that this letter would find its way into the moderate Deutsch-​Evangelisch, this proved a feat which Loofs was unable to perform. He wrote back to Sanday on 30 June 1915 thanking him for his friendly tone and emphasizing his continued respect despite the war. However, the wartime exigencies meant that the time for dialogue would have to wait until the war was over; only then might there be an end to the confusion of languages as at Babel. For the time being, however, ‘[o]‌ur nation (Volk) is fighting for its existence’.71 Loofs’ response to Sanday’s pamphlet was, however, published in Deutsch-​Evangelisch72 and shared in the German assumptions as to British and French war guilt, as well as in the popular belief of English depravity. Nevertheless, despite sharing these prejudices, Loofs did his best to adopt a constructive tone. In response to this published critique, as well as to Loofs’ letter, Sanday wrote an extraordinarily detailed thirty-​one-​page letter of comments, which amounts to an essay on the possible improvements that might have been made to his own pamphlet on The Meaning of the War. Sanday began by thanking Loofs for his letter, and for the news that his son, Otto, was fighting in Russia rather than Flanders. Loofs’ criticisms led Sanday to revise his views, just as his previous exposure to Schweitzer’s opinions had led him to re-​assess his theology. ‘That’, he remarked, ‘makes it seem a little less like civil war’. He went on: Let me begin this letter by frankly confessing that, as far as Germany is concerned, I can quite see that my book has failed. By the help of your criticisms, I believe I can see where and why it has failed … I cannot expect you to give more than a limited amount of attention to what I have written. It has been chiefly an attempt to draw out some of the possible gains from your criticism of my book. But now that its contents have been sifted through the strainer of your searching examination, I cannot help hoping that something solid remains behind, which may at least contribute to the better mutual knowledge that (as I began by saying) must be the first step, if not towards reconciliation, yet towards peace. I  do not think that I  have any illusions as to the nearness of the time when peace will begin to be considered. I am sure that my own countrymen are not ready for it yet, and will not be for some time to come. But it is not too soon to begin to remove some of the worst obstacles that stand in the way. In any case I would beg you to accept my best thanks for the extreme care which you have devoted to the criticism of my book, for the kindly spirit in which you have referred to me personally, and for the conspicuous equity of judgement which you have displayed on many points. Believe me, dear Dr Loofs, Yours very sincerely, W. Sanday.73

96

96  Theological relations during the War Loofs’ response to this letter was limited by wartime restrictions to two densely packed sides, but it reveals how far removed Sanday’s attempts at dialogue were from even the most moderate of his German colleagues. ‘Ich bin überzeugt’, he wrote on 9 October 1915, ‘es wird zwischen England und uns auf lange, lange Zeit keinen dauernden Frieden geben’. Nevertheless he also considered it vital not to treat all the English as though they shared in Lord Grey’s policies: Ich isoliere die Engländer, deren ich herzliche treue Gesinnung bewahre, von all dergleichen. Nur so ist mir die persönliche Stellung bewahrt. Machen Sie es ähnlich, wenn Sie an mich nur andere Denkende denken, die Sie früher schätzen. Die Geschichte wird leider über der gleichen hinweggehen, wie die Wagen über die kleinen Lebewesen der Strasse.74 Loofs’ belief in the power of academics to influence the course of nations was tempered by a pessimism to which Sanday never fully succumbed. This was recognized by J.F. Bethune-​Baker, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, who expressed his admiration for Sanday’s pamphlets … because you can actually detect essential veracity among the many fine characteristics of the Germans as a race –​with no doubt a rather big reserved compartment. I can’t do that. But I will sit at your feet and keep the possibility of it open in my mind. I’m quite sure you are right as to British intellectual insincerity –​lack of disciplined thinking –​and laziness about thought of truth and principle: so I will hesitate to doubt your contrary view of the Germans.75 J. Armitage Robinson, Dean of Wells, wrote similarly on 22 November 1916: I don’t feel irreconcilability, because I have never once felt hate towards the individual German. And, oddly enough, I don’t feel that shooting him in quite a large sense of the word (?)  But then I  haven’t directly suffered from his ‘unclean fighting’. That must make some of our men permanently estranged. It is that hideous element that must postpone reconciliation for very many. Reconciliation to them would seem a betrayal of humanity … I  think what you have written is timely and will do good: though perhaps it will appeal to those who, like myself, have found good German friends. … I once went to see Wilamowitz-​ Mo[ellendorff] out of sheer admiration.76 Another correspondent of Sanday’s, J.  P. Bang, of Denmark, who had translated The Meaning of The War into Danish, however, accused him of a failure to understand Germany: ‘I hope yet with hope against hope. What you say about a possible reconciliation is itself beautifull [sic], but I don’t believe you are right. You have not yet comprehended the Germans’.77

97

Theological relations during the War 97 As the War progressed, although Sanday grew increasingly pessimistic, so he continued in his efforts to understand the enemy and to place his trust in reconciliation even during its most desperate days. For instance, in an answer to Conan Doyle’s letter to The Times of 18 Oct 1915, which called for French aviators to ‘make raid upon Karlsruhe and Stuttgart’, he responded on the following day with the question:  ‘What good can it do our innocent dead to know that there are innocent dead in Germany?’ Even in the depths of 1917, although Sandsay grew increasingly pessimistic, he never failed to see a glimmer of hope. He published a third pamphlet in the summer of 1916 entitled, In View of the End:  A  Retrospect and a Prospect.78 A fourth was published for the Government propaganda agency, the ‘Evangelical Information Committee’ in 1917, entitled, When Should the War End?.79 J. K. Mozley (1883–​1946) Dean and Fellow of Pembroke College, who was one of the most conciliatory of the English theologians, wrote to Sanday on 23 November 1916 after reading In View of the End: I think there were more faults in our English attitude towards Germany, than you admit. But still, the war was made in Germany. … Though Germany appears to us to have sinned very badly, I  do not think we should try to punish her. She might make recompense in some of her destructive doings but that is a different thing.80 A few weeks later Mozley called for a negotiated peace, albeit with imperialist overtones: Christian truth is in itself more important than the present war; but the war is threatening to crush the life out of Europe  –​and delay is dangerous. You speak of the war ending by a process of bargaining. That is what I wish to happen, and when the time is ripe, that is what you wish to happen. But is not the time ripe now? I quite agree with the military party in England, that while there is war, we should fight our best. But I do not agree with them in thinking that the way to a permanent peace is to go on fighting till your adversary lies helpless at your feet. That is what the Times is practically saying day after day, and it seems to me an inhuman doctrine. Whether, if we go on, Germany will lie helpless at our feet, is uncertain; it may be so, but the two sides in the war are very evenly balanced. That Germany was responsible for beginning the war we are agreed; but it seems to me that if we were minded that the war should end now, we could end it, and on terms not dishonourable to any one. That Germany and Austria should govern countries which fervently wish to be delivered from their government, is an evil, and one which we may rightly try to put an end to. Why should we not purchase the abolition of it by giving Germany and Austria a larger share of influence

98

98  Theological relations during the War in the extra-​European world than they have now? At least we might propose such a solution. I think, myself, that nothing would be so sure a means to permanent peace as this give and take sort of arrangement. Please consider this. I do very earnestly think that this is the right way out of the present most tragical situation. If you do not think so, I will not press it; opinions of course differ on the subject, and possibly we may differ. But nothing could give me more satisfaction than our agreement, if we can agree.81 Writing to The Times on 20 Sept 1917, William Sanday lamented the failure of his pamphlets to overturn Junker militarism in Germany as displayed in the escalation of the submarine war. Seeing his four pamphlets as progressive efforts to ‘get at the real truth about the war –​not merely the truth as seen through patriotic spectacles, but at the truth as it is in the nature of things, … I cannot help asking myself. … how much I ought to retract’. He goes on: I do not feel called upon to retract what is perhaps only a cruder statement of what I should say today, though essentially along the same lines with it. … I  do not think I  know of anything in regard to which my views have fundamentally changed; they have deepened and confirmed, but so far as I know that is all. The [point] that I  should most like to add to what I  have written [is]: … That Germany is still a long way from having reached the point at which we can make peace with her. In one respect my own attitude has changed. Writing in the summer of 1916, I  said (in effect) that if peace were made tomorrow I would shake hands with the first German I met. I am afraid I could not say that now. I was writing then before the days of ‘unrestricted submarine activity’ and the like. There are things since that I could not so easily forgive.82

Post-​war relations Despite these reservations, even after the War Sanday continued to be seen as one of the most controversial figures in Anglo-​German relations:  he retained a distance from the patriotic glory of the victor, seeking, like few others, to retain a sense of respect for the defeated nation, and to rebuild relations on a constructive basis. His lecture to the British Academy on ‘International Scholarship after the War’ given in May 1918 with its call for restoration of academic links provoked an extreme reaction from some of Sanday’s opponents, most notably, the physiologist, C. S. Sherrington of Oxford University.83 The general mood of the post-​war period was well expressed by Herbert Hensley Henson, at the time Bishop of Hereford, in a typically perceptive letter to Burkitt of 3 December 1918:84

99

Theological relations during the War 99 My Dear Burkitt, … Since you wrote the incredible has happened. Germany’s sudden and abject collapse has no parallel except the recent one of Russia. The situation which led to the Treaty of Brest Litovsk has been reproduced and I observe with concern that there are not wanting voices which cry for a Peace which shall be humiliating and crushing for Germany as that Treaty was for Russia. Of course, the Clergy are well to the front in ‘voicing’ the popular sentiment, and giving the cry for vengeance the decorous aspect of a cry for justice. I wish the clergy could be silenced. They are invariably disgusting when they bustle to the front in these times of excitement in the self-​selected rôle of the Lord’s prophets. The influence of the Church must be exerted in quiet times when national character is shaped, not wholly apart from it: but in crisis the Church just runs in front of public opinion like the Dalmatian hounds in front of my Lord’s carriage, whose direction is absolutely governed by the carriage they go before! The end of the War has released into voluble expression all the old partisan passions both here and in America. We have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing, though the world is breaking up, and revolution marches. With kind regards to Mrs Burkitt, I am ever yours, H. H. Hereford. The public mood did not change significantly in the years that followed: Anglo-​German theological relations were never restored to their pre-​war heights. Indeed it took a number of years before the first German theologian was able to visit England,85 and even then, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge refused a platform. Deissmann, who was the first to visit in early 1923, had to speak at the non-​conformist Westminster College in Cambridge. Even four years after the armistice, the War was still a sensitive topic, as Deißman wrote to Burkitt on 11 May 1923:86 Werter Herr Kollege, …Ich kann aber nicht zustimmen, dass wir über die Probleme des Kriegs und des Friedens von Versailles lieber nicht sprechen sollten, da Deutschland und England hier geteilt seien. Ich meine, gerade weil sie geteilt sind, ­sollten sie darüber sprechen, oder besser:  sollten wir darüber sprechen. Ich tue es hier als Gast natürlich nur, wenn ich darum gebeten werde, und ich habe überall, wo ich war diese Aufforderung erhalten und viel Bereitschaft zum Anhören und zum Austausch gefunden. Wir sind uns auch an vielen Punkten ziemlich weit entgegen gekommen. Die gemeinsame christliche Basis erleichtert wohl diese ganze Aussprache sehr. Mich brauchen Sie nicht für unbelehrbar zu halten, so wenig ich Sie für unbelehrbar. Der Umfang unserer Informationen über diese ganze Zeit ist verschieden, und man kann sich gegenseitig doch manches Nützliche mitteilen.

100

100  Theological relations during the War Mit besten Empfehlungen –​Ihr ergebener A. W Deißmann Similarly, personal relationships were never properly restored. Burkitt wrote on 7 July 192287 to von Dobschütz expressing his concerns about the restoration of relationships: There was too much ‘England ist der Feind’ in Germany during the War for us over here to forget. You don’t seem yet to realise what a difference the War has made, a War which we believe was caused not by the ex-​Kaiser, but by the will of the German people. We think now of Germany as a nation that does not care what it does to those that stand in its way –​witness always Belgium! –​but a nation that at the same time complains whenever anyone else interferes with its desires. We all consider Germany has been let off very lightly and are amazed to see the old arrogant spirit still so active. That is the general impression here: I am not arguing about the rights and wrongs of it. In my opinion the time has not yet come to discuss these things calmly. Discussion of the kind that you and some other Germans seem anxious to start would convince no one and only lead to a loss of temper. I venture to think we must forget before we can agree … Yours very sincerely, F.C. Burkitt

Conclusion If this brief survey of some correspondence between English and German theologians during the First World War proves anything, it points to what became an irreversible distancing between the two countries, which manifested itself after the War not merely in the loss of most serious reception of German scholarship (except for a few isolated individuals like George Bell and Sir Edwyn Hoskyns), but also in the redefining of English liberalism which in its pre-​war form was forever tainted by its association with a ‘made in Germany’ slogan. In the 1920s English liberalism became increasingly associated with a more distinctively home-​grown version which found expression in the Modern Churchmen’s Union. At the same time, the First World War marked a crushing defeat for liberalism not only in German theology, but also in politics and society; and along with this disappeared much of the constructive effort towards peace and democracy exemplified by the League of Nations. The editor of the Chicago-​based American Journal of Theology, C.  W. Votaw, wrote somewhat prophetically to Burkitt on 20 December 1918:

101

Theological relations during the War 101 Life, and the world, can never again be the same to us who have suffered through the agonies of the war … England, France and America need to agree that they will restrain themselves and each other, as well as Germany and Russia, in order to avoid further international aggressiveness. Perhaps it is too soon in world-​ development to expect the moralization of international relations.88 Liberal forces in Germany were given little chance at home and abroad: the war had destroyed more than any had bargained for, unleashing forces too powerful to control. And with the death of liberalism in politics and theology, despite the best efforts, hope of international reconciliation disappeared for two generations. Although the humanity of the enemy continued to be perceived by those attracted to German scholarship, others, both in England and Germany, failed to grasp the essential humanitarianism of the German Enlightenment tradition. The next chapter reveals how difficult it was to rebuild relationships after the War.

Notes 1 On British theological opinions in the First World War, see Charles E. Bailey, ‘The British Protestant Theologians in the First World War:  Germanophobia Unleashed’, Harvard Theological Review 77 (1984): 195‒221. From an evangelical perspective, see also Arlie J. Hoover, God, Germany, and Britain in the Great War: a Study in Clerical Nationalism (New York: Praeger, 1989), See also Alan Wilkinson, The Church of England and the First World War (London:  SPCK, 1978) and Albert Marrin, The Last Crusade: The Church of England in the First World War (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1974). 2 ‘H. H. E & H. E.’, ‘Safeguarded’ (Birmingham, 1915). 3 Arthur C. Champneys, ‘Criticism’ as made in Germany and Common Sense (London: Skeffington, 1915). 4 Champneys, ‘Criticism’ as made in Germany, 18. 5 Champneys, ‘Criticism’ as made in Germany, 23. 6 Champneys, ‘Criticism’ as made in Germany, 27–​8. 7 J. N. Figgis, Civilisation at the Cross Roads (London: Longmans, 1912), 193. 8 J. N. Figgis, Gospel and Human Needs (London: Longmans, 1909), 41. 9 J. N. Figgis, Antichrist and Other Sermons (London: Longmans, 1913), 29. 10 J. N. Figgis, Hopes for English Religion (London: Longmans, 1919), 15. 11 Figgis, Hopes, 200. The Roman Catholic Modernist, George Tyrrell was also deeply critical of German liberalism. In his Christianity at the Cross-​Roads (London: Longmans, 1909), he remarks: ‘No sooner was the Light of the World kindled than it was put under a bushel. The Pearl of Great Price fell into the dustheap of Catholicism, not without the wise permission of Providence, desirous to preserve it till the day when Germany should rediscover it and separate it from its useful but deplorable accretions’ (47). 12 Leighton Pullan, New Testament Criticism during the Past Century (London: Longmans 1907), 30. See above, Chapter 3. 13 Much of Sanday’s Correspondence is in the Bodleian Library, Oxford (Bod.): MS Eng. misc. d.122–​128; d.140. There is a fairly complete bibliography by A. Souter, ‘William Sanday:  Bibliography’, JTS 22 (1921), 193–​205. On Sanday, see my

102

102  Theological relations during the War books Bishops, Saints, and Politics (London: T & T Clark, 2007), ch. 8; and The Coming Crisis: The Impact of Eschatology on Theology in Edwardian England (Sheffield:  Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), ch. 3.  On the debates immediately before the First World War, see Keith W. Clements, Lovers of Discord: Twentieth Century Theological Controversies in England (London: SPCK, 1988), 49–​106; Thomas A. Langford, In Search of Foundations: English Theology, 1900–​1920 (Nashville TN: Abingdon, 1960), ch. 5; Alan Stephenson, The Rise and Decline of English Modernism (London: SPCK, 1984), ch. 5. 14 H. Hensley Henson, Retrospect of an Unimportant Life, 2 vols (London: Oxford University Press, 1942), ii, 50. 15 William Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ (Edinburgh:  T & T Clark, 1905, second edition with revisions, 1906). See my Bishops, Saints and Politics (London: T&T Clark, 2007), ch. 8. 16 Ernst A.  A. O.  A.  von Dobschütz (1870–​1934) was extraordinarius in Jena (1898); ordinarius in Strassburg (1904); Breslau (1910); Halle (1913). Under the combined influence of Adolf von Harnack and Martin Kähler he sought to combine the best of both traditions, trying to continue Kähler’s plan to write a history of the Bible in the Church. Von Dobschütz was also a friend of other Oxford theologians, including the liberal Hastings Rashdall and the Anglo-​Catholic N. P. Williams. Although many papers are preserved in Halle, there are no letters from Sanday or Burkitt. 17 Friedrich Loofs (1858–​1928) was ordinarius in Church History in Halle (1888). He co-​founded Die Christliche Welt, the Ritschlian Church newspaper in 1886. He always claimed an allegiance to Ritschlianism, not having been grasped by the ‘new metaphysical and mystical wave’ (Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, second edition, vol. 4, col. 448). There are letters dating from 1899–​ 1920 in Sanday’s correspondence. Although many of Loofs’ papers are preserved in Halle, there are no letters from either Sanday or Burkitt. 18 Sanday von Dobschütz, 30 October. 1907, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.128 no. 46. 19 William Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1907), 38, 42. 20 William Sanday, ‘The Apocalyptic element in the Gospels’, Hibbert Journal 10 (1911): 83–​109, here 109. 21 Sanday to Albert Schweitzer, 31 January 1912, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.128 no. 95. 22 He first states this in The Life of Christ, 199. It later becomes the guiding principle of his theology. See, for instance, William Sanday, ‘On Continuity of Thought and Relativity of Expression’, Modern Churchman 5 (1915): 125‒42 and Form and Content in the Christian Tradition: A Friendly Discussion between W. Sanday, D.D. and N.P. Williams, M.A. (London: Longmans, 1916). 23 At a meeting of the Theological Dinner in 1912. See G. L. Prestige, The Life of Charles Gore (London Heinemann, 1935), 347. Sanday’s opinions circulated in printed form in the ‘private and confidential’ Theses on the Biblical Miracles of 1913. 24 B. H. Streeter (ed.), Foundations:  A  Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought. By Seven Oxford Men (London: Macmillan, 1912). 25 Sanday to Loofs, 3 May 1913, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.128 no. 110. 26 Randall Davidson to Sanday, 27 January 1913, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.123 (I) no. 6. 27 See Wiliam Sanday, Bishop Gore’s Challenge to Criticism:  A  Reply to the Bishop of Oxford’s Open Letter on the Basis of Anglican Fellowship (London:  Longmans, 1914); ‘The Liberal Position in regard to the creeds and

103

Theological relations during the War 103 the Hereford appointment’, Hibbert Journal 17 (1918–​19): 75‒82; The Position of Liberal Theology: a friendly examination of the Bishop of Zanzibar’s Open Letter entitled ‘The Christ and the Critics’ (London: Faith Press, 1920), 17. 28 Charles Gore, The Basis of Anglican Fellowship in Faith and Organisation (London:  Mowbray, 1914), 8–​ 10. As discussed in Chapter 3 above, Frank Weston, the Bishop of Zanzibar, and later one of the leading Anglo-​Catholics, had sparked off the controversy with his Ecclesiana Anglicana. For what does she stand? An open letter to the Right Reverend Father in God, Edgar, Lord Bishop of St Albans (London: Longmans, 1913). For him, too, modernism was a betrayal of the historic inheritance: ‘Modernism does not make men Christian in the accepted sense of the word, much less does it make them sons of the Holy Church of Christ. It is a new religion, and every soul attracted thereto means a new betrayal of the witness with which we are entrusted’ (Ecclesiana Anglicana, 27). 29 Sanday, Bishop Gore’s Challenge to Criticism. 30 Sanday, Bishop Gore’s Challenge to Criticism, 29. 31 Champneys, ‘Criticism’ as made in Germany, 18. 32 Henry Latimer Jackson, The Eschatology of Jesus (London: Macmillan, 1913), xi. Henry Latimer Jackson was Rector of Little Canfield near Great Dunmow in Essex from 1911. After education at Highgate and in Germany he studied at Christ’s College, Cambridge, becoming a Fellow of St Paul’s College, Sydney in 1885. In 1895 he became incumbent of St Mary’s, Huntingdon. He was also Lecturer at Cambridge in Modern and Medieval Dutch literature from 1918. 33 Francis Crawford Burkitt (1864–​1935) was educated at Harrow and Trinity College, Cambridge. He wrote on a wide range of subjects including palaeography and New Testament, as well as Syriac and liturgy. From 1905 he was Norrisian Professor at Cambridge. Many of his papers are in the Cambridge University Library (CUL). 34 In his letter to Burkitt inviting him to the Breslau awards ceremony, von Dobschütz remarked that ‘[y]‌ou may show some of your DD hoods to the admiring people of Breslau. We are as you know simple folk’ (Burkitt Papers, CUL MS Add.7658 B279A). 35 Sanday, The Life of Christ, 37. 36 This was perhaps rather surprising given that he was an ‘ardent student of military history, and a member of the Oxford Krieg Spiel Club, where his military combinations often overpowered his more professional opponents, and when the war came his interest in it was great’ (Obituary in The Times, 17 Sept. 1920). 37 The Appeal was published as an appendix to the Oxford Reply: To the Christian Scholars of Europe and America: A Reply from Oxford to the German Address to Evangelical Christians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1914), 19‒23. See above, Chapter 3. 38 William Sanday, The Deeper Causes of War (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1914). 39 The Deeper Causes of War, 10. 40 The Deeper Causes of War, 5. 41 To the Christian Scholars of Europe and America, 14. 42 Robinson to Sanday, 18 September 1914 in Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.122 (I) no.65. 43 Davidson to Burkitt, 18 September 1914, Burkitt Papers, CUL MS Add.7658 B256. 44 W. B. Selbie, The War and Theology (London: Oxford University Press, 1915), 3. A  good example of equating Prussian militarism with German liberalism is offered by Leighton Pullan in Missionary Principles and the Primate on Kikuyu (Oxford: Mowbray, 1915). See above, Chapter 3.

104

104  Theological relations during the War 45 W. B. Selbie, The War and Theology, 4. 46 F. J.  Foakes-​Jackson, Cambridge Review (14 October 1914), cited in Gordon Wakefield, ‘Biographical Introduction’ in E. C. Hoskyns and F. N. Davey, Crucifixion–​Resurrection (London: SPCK, 1981), 42. Much of Foakes-​Jackson’s information about Germany came from the young E.  Clement Hoskyns, who had studied in Berlin under Harnack in 1906, who became a distinguished military chaplain during the War, and who was one of the few theologians who maintained a link with German theologians after the War. 47 Latimer Jackson to Burkitt,1 October 1914, Burkitt Papers, CUL MS. Add. 7658 B488. 48 Ropes to Burkitt 22 September 1914, Burkitt Papers, CUL MS. Add.7658 B850. 49 Letter of 6 October 1914, Burkitt Papers, CUL MS Add 7658 B695A. 50 The Guardian (5 November 1914), 1227. 51 28 December 1914, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng.misc. d.124 (I) no. 44. 52 Burkitt also remained friends with Weiss, writing the obituary notice for the Harvard Theological Review during the War: ‘Johannes Weiss: In Memoriam’, Harvard Theological Review 8 (1915):  291–​7. He maintained links with the Weiss family after the War. 53 Jackson to Sanday, 19 March 1915, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.124 no. 46. 54 Latimer Jackson to Sanday, 23 March 1915, Sanday Papers, Bod. Eng.misc. d.124 (I) no. 47. 55 William Sanday, The Meaning of the War for Germany and Great Britain: An Attempt at Synthesis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1915). 56 Bienemann to Sanday, 15 April 1915, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.122 (I) no. 139. 57 See esp. Sanday, ‘The Constructive Quarterly from Within’, Constructive Quarterly 2 (1914):  1–​19. There was a similar journal in German, Die Eiche, edited by the Berlin pastor, Friedrich Siegmund-​Schultze, founded in 1913 ‘for the fostering of better relations between Great Britain and Germany’. 58 Sanday, The Meaning of the War, 66. 59 Sanday, The Meaning of the War, 9. 60 Sanday, The Meaning of the War, 104. 61 Sanday, The Meaning of the War, 109. 62 Sanday, The Meaning of the War, 122. 63 Sanday, The Meaning of the War, 122–​3. 64 Sanday and Bridges had studied German together in Germany for eight months in 1869. 65 Bridges to Sanday, 23 March 1915, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.122 (I) no. 175. 66 Mackintosh to Sanday, 14 April 1915, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc d.124 (II) no. 380. 67 Latimer Jackson to Sanday, 9 May 1915, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc d.124 (I) no. 52. 68 Latimer Jackson to Sanday, 27 May 1915, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc d.124 (I) no. 55. 69 Latimer Jackson to Sanday, 29 June 1915, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.124 (I) no. 57. 70 Loofs to Sanday, 19 June 1915, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.128 no. 174. 71 Loofs to Sanday, 30 June 1915, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.140 no. 220. 72 Deutsch-​Evangelisch VI (1915): 246‒66, 289‒314. 73 Sanday to Loofs, 22 (31) July 1915, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.128 no.169.

105

Theological relations during the War 105 74 ‘I isolate those English people who maintain a sincere and devout conscience from all those others. This is the only way I can uphold my personal position. Do the same yourself … Unfortunately history will crush such people just as the carriage runs over the little living creatures in its path’. Loofs to Sanday, 9 October 1915, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.140 no. 224. After the War Loofs wrote a letter to Skillings on 30 April 1920 forwarded to Sanday, which reveals that he continued to hold Sanday in very high esteem: ‘Er gehört zu den Engländern, deren ich trotz allem, was geschehen ist, stets ein dankbares und freundschaftliches Gedenke bewahren werde … den … die Freude am Irdischen [liegt] nur in der Vergangenheit. Eine glückliche Zukunft zu erleben, müssen wir unsern Kindern und Enkeln überlassen’ (Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.124 (I) no. 230). 75 Bethune-​Baker to Sanday, Sanday Papers, 22 November 1916, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.122 (I) no. 153. 76 Armitage Robinson to Sanday, 22 November 1916, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.122 (I) no. 68. 77 Bang to Sanday, 30 November 1916, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.122 (I) no. 79. 78 William Sanday, In View of the End: A Retrospect and a Prospect (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1916). 79 William Sanday, When Should the War End? (London: Evangelical Information Committee, 1917). It was translated into German as ‘Wie soll der Krieg endigen?’, Wissen und Leben 10 (1917): 9–​16. 80 Mozley to Sanday, 23 November 1916, Sanday Papers, Bod. Eng. misc. d.124 (II) no. 506. 81 Mozley to Sanday, 2 December 1916, Sanday Papers, Bod. Eng. misc. d.124 (II) no. 511. 82 Sanday to The Times, 20 Sept 1917. 83 See below, Chapter 6. 84 Henson to Burkitt, Burkitt Papers, 3 December 1918, CUL MS Add. 7658 B433. 85 See below, Chapter 7. 86 Deißman to Burkitt, 11 May 1923, Burkitt Papers, CUL MS Add. 7658 B259. 87 Burkitt to von Dobschütz, 7 July 1922, Burkitt Papers, CUL MS. Add. 7658 A10. 88 C. W.  Votaw to Burkitt, 20 December 1918, Burkitt Papers, CUL MS. Add.7658 B974.

106

6 The Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch Affair Theological relations between England and Germany after the First World War On 10 June 1917 Sir Frederic Kenyon,1 President of the British Academy and Director of the British Museum, made a request to William Sanday for a paper for a forthcoming meeting of the Academy. Any subject would be welcome, but if you have nothing else ready to hand, there is one subject of a general kind which, it seems to me might well be considered by the Academy and which no one could give a better lead than you. I mean the question of international scholarship after the war. Might we not be usefully preparing our minds for the difficult questions which will arise in this connection when peace is declared? This chapter seeks to chart the history of this British Academy Paper and in doing so will seek to explain the rather cryptic final paragraph of Sanday’s obituary in The Times: In May 1918, Dr. Sanday … invited Professor Troeltsch, of Heidelberg,2 to take up the task of bringing about a healthy change in German public opinion, but the invitation led to no practical result.3 In asking Sanday for a paper, Kenyon was relying on his reputation as a moderate and conciliatory thinker, who had sought to understanding Germany though the course of the War. Initially Sanday was not keen on accepting the offer and solicited help from Edwyn Bevan (1870–​1947),4 who was working in the information department of the Foreign Office. Bevan had expressed his own views about the war in an early Oxford wartime pamphlet, Brothers All: The War and the Race Question. Like many others at the time he differentiated between true sort of Christianity that was distorted by the ‘will to power’: The nations of Europe have become Christian only to a very imperfect degree. When the action of a so-​called Christian State is determined by the very anti-​Christian principles of national egoism and ‘will to power’ it is untrue to regard it as a Christian State, even if one can point to

107

Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch 107 a nucleus of real Christianity among its people. Supposing we wished to present a false appearance to the non-​Christian world, to cover up the truth for fear of scandal, it would be in vain. The sooner the non-​ Christian world realizes that Christendom is not yet Christian, the better for the prospects of Christianity.5 Bevan, however, proved reluctant to co-​operate since, as Kenyon reported, in his reading of the political journals, he ‘says his work has lain almost entirely among the ordinary German political journals, and he has seen little or nothing of the writings or opinions of German scholars’. Kenyon continued: He also says, what is quite true, that the question of our attitude towards German scholars, and international relations between scholars generally after the war, is mainly one of principle, and can be handled without detailed up to date information as to German utterances. I think this is so, and that no one could treat it with more authority and in a more moderate and judicial spirit than you. I  hope therefore that you will after all undertake it. The question has got to be faced and it would be better to do so before the waters are muddied by journalists. There is plenty of time for you to turn it over between now and next May, though I should like to include the paper now in our programme for the session. It need not, unless you wish it, be a long paper, as there would probably be a considerable amount of discussion after it.6 Sanday replied to Kenyon complaining that his old age was finally catching up with him: Writing is always an effort to me, and I rather have to screw myself up to things … I should explain that I am now 74, and am in some ways feeling my years. … I had been asking myself whether it would be possible that Bevan and I should co-​operate. It seemed to me that between us we ought to be able to do what you wish. It would be the greatest advantage and satisfaction to me if I  could have his help. … He has youth on his side. Sanday then outlined his ideas for the paper, which should begin with a historical retrospect of the part actually taken by German and British scholars in the literature of the War, both jointly (in manifestoes etc.) and severally; and that then there should follow some sort of summing up and suggestions as to the future.7 In the end Bevan agreed to co-​operate with Sanday if only to the extent of supplying him with documents from the Foreign Office library and to

108

108  Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch reading and commenting on Sanday’s drafts. Bevan was reluctant to offer joint authorship. Israel Gollancz, Secretary of the Academy, who had asked for the title on 11 April 1918 which was to be ‘International Scholarship after the War’,8 suggested to Sanday, that since he had not heard from Bevan, the paper had better go down in the programme as ‘by you with his assistance’.9 The first draft, which reached Bevan in early April, spoke of the ‘crushing of German militarism’, a phrase which greatly distressed him, since he felt ‘German ideals cannot be removed from their minds by external force’.10 In his reply two days later Sanday agreed: ‘Of course you are perfectly right in all that you say about the “crushing of militarism”. I had intended to guard myself by saying that I agreed with the substance of the phrase and only took exception to the form’. He then went on to reveal that he intended to insert what was to prove an important paragraph on the question how far moral condemnation ought to be a bar on the resumption of intercourse with German Scholars and the German Academies. I do not think it ought to be –​at least not for any length of time. Fortunately, Academies do not recognise orthodoxies and heterodoxies. They may disapprove of unscientific motives and methods, but hardly to the point of refusing personal relations. You will tell me if you would be disposed to differ from this. Sanday again asked Bevan for his active participation and thought ‘he ought to be able to do it in Office hours as part of war work’.11 In sending a further draft to Bevan on 16 April 1918, Sanday said that he would be ‘especially glad of anything you might be able to tell of Harnack since the first year of the war. … I rather think I shall try to introduce a comparison of British and German contributions to theology’.12 In response,13 Bevan sent several articles to Sanday which, along with unnamed articles by Adolf von Harnack, Martin Rade and Rudolf Eucken, also included Troeltsch’s important essay on the German conception of freedom (‘Die deutsche Idee der Freiheit’) from the Neue Rundschau, a high brow literary journal which had supported the war unequivocally, but usually intelligently, from 1914.14 He also sent an article about F.  W. Foerster (1869–​1966),15 Professor of Education in Munich and strong critic of German policy who was forced to leave Germany in 1917, ‘which shows that there still is a Germany with which we could have fellowship’. He also sent Otto von Gierke’s Unsere Friedensziele16 which he regarded as an example of the perversion of the finest German minds. Particularly the crude theory that conquest as such betokens a divine verdict on the conqueror. (Why, one asks, when those who exercise violence on their neighbours are 60 millions, and not when they are, let us say, 60 highwaymen?).

109

Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch 109 Finally, he included a book by the majority socialist, Wolfgang Heine on ‘Nationaler und Internationaler Geist’ which refused to ‘subordinate the national quarrel to moral canons’.17 Bevan found the overall tenor of the draft, which attempted ‘to introduce a comparison of British and German contributions to theology’, agreeable and so moderate that it would ‘go home more forcibly to any non-​English scholar who may read it. On a special point’, he went on, ‘I am very glad you have given that special notice to Baron [Friedrich]von Hügel’.18 However, he found the new paragraph rather hard to swallow expressing serious reservations: If I understand your argument, it is that an Academy, as such, does not consider any doctrines under the doctrines of ‘heresy’ or ‘orthodoxy’, and that therefore though we (as members of nation) rightly fight against the Germans, ‘I’, as a member of an Academy, am unable to pronounce the German position unsound. If I  thus get the argument rightly, I  do not feel happy about it. There seem to me two distinct questions: (1) how far an Academy takes cognizance of theories and doctrines. (2) how far scholars, who are in many cases, members of an Academy, can have personal intercourse with members of an enemy nation. I should agree with you that an Academy has to give impartial consideration to theories of all kinds, even immoral ones, but that does not seem to me to mean that the members of an Academy, as persons, ought to have intercourse with persons who hold and act by immoral doctrines. I take it that the question of personal intercourse is the one the paper sets out to examine. It seems to me of importance, though very difficult, to distinguish in the case of German scholars how far they really stand for immoral theories and how far their difference from us is simply a fluid[?]‌19 and obstinate misapprehension of the facts. In the passages of Troeltsch you quote it seems to be rather the latter. Bevan found it difficult to sympathize with Sanday’s unwillingness to condemn anything as heresy before giving it a fair and thorough hearing. Sanday’s paper, ‘International Scholarship after the War’, was presented at the British Academy on 9 May 1918 and was reported at length in The Times on the following day, in an article entitled ‘Truth for the Enemy: an Invitation to German Scholars’ which had probably been prepared by Sanday himself.20 For reasons that will soon become clear there is no copy of the full paper in existence; the newspaper report and Bevan’s letter provide the only evidence of its content.21 According to The Times account, Sanday was convinced that the Lichnowsky Memorandum,22 which purported to show German culpability for the invasion of Belgium, could have the effect of ‘bringing about a healthy change in German public opinion’,

110

110  Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch and the bulk of the paper seems to have been directed to a discussion of ‘making amends’ or the question ‘how are we to behave?’ in the light of these revelations. The nearest analogy would be that of the behaviour of individuals after a serious quarrel, a quarrel in which one of the disputants had right on his side and in which he had great cause to be aggrieved. How would a gentleman behave after such a quarrel had been brought to an end? Although Sanday recognized that it was impossible to tell for sure until the war had actually come to an end, it was likely that after a period of coolness there would be a ‘little step’ towards co-​operation brought on by a ‘practical necessity’. In the abnormal situation of World War, however, when Germany was obviously in the wrong, the question was more complex. ‘What ought our moral condemnation of Germany to count for?’ The responsibility for a satisfactory answer to this question depended on the Germans alone, ‘who had deliberately ignored all consequences that did not make for their own victory’. The only glimmer of hope was that the Lichnowsky disclosures might bring about a change of opinion. Sanday went on to tackle the question of the restoration of academic links with Germany. Although the British Academy was justified in making protests against Germany’s ‘monstrous acts’, he nevertheless thought it was superfluous to impose special disabilities on German scholars, because the whole nation was at one in condemning the German doctrines and practices, and Germany knew this quite well. After the war there would be a great, constructive effort all over the world, especially in war, politics, morals and religion. Many searching questions under these heads would be involved in the preliminary peace discussions. By no sort of boycott could Germans be excluded from those discussions. Rather should we welcome their cooperation. Still less could the world afford to do without the German contribution if it should enter into the debates as a changed and converted nation –​clothed and in its right mind. Sanday was thus calling for little less than a negotiated peace, which now seemed possible after the new disclosures. He thus asked, ‘What would writers like Troeltsch and von Harnack say to the new situation?’ Although they had used unjust language against the Entente powers this was no more than an echo of the official opinion. Now that the former ambassador to London had made his disclosures this would surely bring about a new situation. After all ‘in other respects they had written with weight and breadth of view’. Sanday pointed to another example, that of Loofs, who had ‘tried to do scrupulous justice’ to his pamphlet ‘so far as his dependence on official data allowed him’. He went on:

111

Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch 111 What attitude would such men assume in the strong new light which had now been thrown upon the events which led up to the war? Would they speak out frankly and at long last tell their people the truth? Sanday concluded by suggesting that Prince Lichnowsky be put in power, and that in the meantime, the ‘learned class’ make amends on behalf of the nation and thus ‘throw a bridge across the gulf which at present separated German ideas from those of the Western Allies’. Sanday ended by announcing that ‘Professor Troeltsch of Heidelberg’23 be invited to say the best he could for his country and at the same time to try to bring into accord with the ideas of the western powers. He must first unsay emphatically certain things –​monuments of perversity and unfairness –​which he had said about the Allies; but Professor Troeltsch was capable of much better things than he had said in the past … with Prince Lichnowsky’s memoir in his hand, he could be trusted to see what these better things were. The article ends with a very brief account of the ensuing discussion merely stating that Lord Bryce thought that ‘absolution’ could only follow on ‘repentance’.

The aftermath of Sanday’s lecture The next day (11 May) The Times responded to Sanday’s suggestion that Troeltsch might help convince the German public of the truth by publishing a long article in its ‘Through German Eyes’ column. This summarized two articles entitled ‘Verschiebungen der inneren Fronten’ which Troeltsch had contributed to the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten of 6 April,24 and thus two weeks after the Lichnowsky disclosures had been published in Germany. Troeltsch is reported as having condoned the offensive in the West as well as the presumption of western culpability. ‘Professor Troeltsch fears that “reason” would still not prevail’ even after an imposed peace on the Western powers, and that Germany would still have to deal ‘with morally poisoned and agitated masses and with the ruthless schemes of power of individuals’. Such is the language which the German theologian uses about the English and American opinion after a fortnight’s digestion of the memorandum! He is altogether an opportunist and ends his first article as follows:–​ ‘One may regret it, but there is no such thing as dogma in politics, and what can and should be demanded in a certain situation will become impossible, or must be carefully adapted to the new circumstances, when the general situation changes’.

112

112  Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch For Troeltsch, The Times author concluded, the problem was to create a ‘balance between Realpolitik and Sittlichkeit’. Sanday was most disappointed with this report as he reported in a letter to Captain P. Chalmers Mitchell (1864–​1945), author of a book on Evolution and the War,25 on 15 May: I am afraid that the present moment is not propitious for the interests which we seem to have in common. You will have seen the account of ‘two long articles’ by Troeltsch in Saturday’s Times (Through German Eyes). I  felt that he had let me down badly, as nothing could be less opportune for my purpose. the only question seemed to be whether he had read the Lichnowsky Memorandum. If he had, it had made (as yet) little or no impression upon him. I also gather that neither the Government nor the nation have any wish to encourage a ‘peace offensive’ from the other side at present. I imagine that in any case we shall have to wait a substantial time to see what is the effect of the Lichnowsky papers, and something will also depend on the course of the war. In the meantime you may like to see the full text of my paper when it is in print. At the present it is in the hands of the Secretary of the British Academy and will probably be published with the discussion. I should be very glad if I could be of any use when the time comes. But I think you will agree with me that the only thing to be done at present is to wait.26 Other reactions were considerably less favourable to Sanday’s call for a negotiated peace. J.  A. Stewart (1846–​1933), White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy and Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, for instance, wrote to The Times on 10 May expressing his unease with Sanday’s Paper: I understand Dr. Sanday to address his invitation now, before the military power of Germany has been destroyed –​will be welcomed by the German Government. … They will say:–​‘Influential people in England are beginning to believe that the German public, enlightened by the Lichnowsky revelations, is becoming more friendly; … out of this academic talk an ‘atmosphere’ will be created in England favourable to the conclusion of `a good German peace’ by negotiation’. … To address an ‘invitation’, as Dr.  Sanday now does, to the professorial agents of the German Government is to do exactly what that perfidious Government wishes. Until the military power of Germany has been destroyed, British scholars ought to follow the safe example of American Labour and decline to have any talk about ‘peace’ with enemy agents.27

113

Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch 113

Sherrington’s bombshell At this time, Sanday had assumed that his paper would soon be published, presumably in the Proceedings of the British Academy as was the standard practice. However, on 17 May 1918, a letter appeared in The Times entitled ‘An Invitation to German Scholars’ which led to the suppression of the paper and eventually set back the resumption of Anglo-​German theological relations by a number of years. It came from the most unlikely quarters of Professor C.  S. Sherrington,28 the great Oxford physiologist, who referred to a memorandum of 16 August 1907. One can only conjecture as to Sherrington’s motives in publishing his devastating memorandum which so effectively silenced Sanday’s efforts at conciliation. He does not seem to have been a particularly chauvinist character and after the War he quickly resumed contacts with Germany, earning the reproach of T. D. Acland who demanded the removal of all German Professors from the Physiological Society.29 Introducing the report of the memorandum, The Times remarked that ‘Troeltsch’s present opinions, as summarized in this column last Saturday, are just what were to be expected of him, and it shows that there is not the smallest chance of such Germans being affected by Prince Lichnowsky’s demonstration of the immediate causes of the war’. The full text of Sherrington’s report of his memorandum reads as follows:30 In view of recent reference in your columns to the opinions and attitude to the Rev. [sic] Prof. Troeltsch, the following may be of interest. It is a memorandum made by me as long back as 1907 of a statement which in the course of conversation he then made to me. I was at the time staying at Heidelberg with a German friend in the Professoriate there. During my visit Prof. Troeltsch and myself had met rather frequently. He was then Pro-​rector of the University. Our talk had on occasions prior to this not touched on international politics, but on this occasion which he knew likely to be our last before my leaving, he entered upon the theme of international politics in the way the memorandum records. I would preface one more remark: I had enjoyed my meetings with him and the liking had, I think, been mutual, for he had seemed to seek me out at social gatherings where, as on this occasion, we were guests in common. The decision and frankness with which on this final meeting he entered on this theme may have been due in part to the cordiality that had arisen between us. Memorandum. Friday, 16 August 1907. After we had been talking for a short time about other things the Pro-​ Rector Troeltsch, speaking in German always, began: ‘King Edward is a great surprise to Germany. We had regarded him as personally a nonentity whose chief interest lay in the race-​course –​we awake suddenly to find in him one of the most able diplomatists in Europe, certainly the

114

114  Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch most penetrative in England’. After more to somewhat similar effect he went on, ‘Great conflicts which arise when an old world-​power is destroyed by a new one must always be accompanied by many sad events –​the war between Germany and England will be a matter of regret to me, although I recognize that it is a necessity’. Astonished, I said, ‘Why is a war between Germany and England a necessity? No one in England thinks of making war on Germany. Why should Germany make war on England?’ He replied, ‘The war is a necessity for Germany because England has so much that it is absolutely necessary for Germany to possess in order to fulfil her rôle as a world-​state’. I asked what those possessions were that Germany so desired. He said, ‘Ports and colonies in many parts of the world; Australia, S. Africa, Hong Kong, India. England is not really strong but there has been no strong power to dispute these great sources of wealth with her. These sources of wealth must fall to a new world-​power and that is clearly Germany’. I urged that the age was gone when one believed that prosperity for one European nation could be achieved by its spoliation of another. He replied that for Germany it was not simply a question of spoliation; the population of Germany increased yearly beyond the limits of the German land-​surface to contain. He said, ‘Our Germans who go to America lose their tie to Germany; in spite of all our Government can do, they cease to aid Germany and its future. We live in an epoch when again as often in past ages great movements of a people driven to conquest by the necessity for expansion is in progress. And though I regret the heavy strokes that have to be given, I recognize that for Germany it is a necessity and that in fulfilling her destiny she will forward the history of the world. For instance, our work people are the best in the world; they know that, and they know also that their Army and their Navy are the weapons of blood and steel which can open the world and give them wealth and power as the competent directors of workmen who under their supervision would do more for the world than they would otherwise do. They know they can thus become rich masters themselves.31 In England, for instance, the workmen are idle and capricious but under a strong régime they would work well, and disciplined as they would be with us they would recognize their own place and become contented with it. The English Government already fears our Navy. It makes pretence of looking the other way at each increase of it. As it continues to grow larger the English Government will fear it more. But England as a political influence is becoming effete; her Governments exemplify that; they exhibit little insight into world-​ politics to-​day. When our Navy is larger than the English it will be too late for England to interfere and the opportunity will rest with

115

Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch 115 Germany. The day for the decision of England’s fate will then come quickly. Many here seem to think that England will submit without much struggle. But I begin to believe that under King Edward she will not submit without a bitter struggle. I  shall regret it, but Germany has no choice. It is the world-​movement of a people. It is chacun à son tour. [The Pro-​rector]32 pressed somewhat for my opinion as to whether England would fight or would submit without fighting. I declined, however, to admit the practical possibility of such contingency arising as I could not bring myself to believe that Germany would embark upon an unprovoked war for the sake of political spoliation. The memorandum provoked a favourable response from Sherrington’s friends. J.  A. Stewart, wrote to him on 17 May 1918, that it was ‘one of the most interesting and informative pieces of evidence I  have seen, and I am delighted that you have it in The Times today’.33 Similarly, Sir Herbert Warren (1853–​1930), President of Magdalen College, read the memorandum with ‘intense interest’. ‘I have never seen my belief about the German ideas so concisely stated or so startlingly confirmed. You have chosen this exactly right moment at which to bring this out. I must say I admire your self-​restraint in keeping it in bottle so long’.34 Sherrington’s memorandum destroyed whatever credibility was still left in Sanday’s paper after the report of Troeltsch’s views of 11 May. Thus, in a short leader of 24 May, The Times suggested that the Sanday’s ‘well meant but not well informed’ paper was never likely to receive a ‘helpful reply from Heidelberg’. It also asked, had Sherrington sent his memorandum to The Times in 1907, would it ‘have been either inserted or believed?’35 The publication of Sanday’s paper, however, still hung in the balance. The propaganda war against any form of negotiated peace, however, appeared to have won the day. F. G. Kenyon wrote to Sanday on 1 June: My dear Sanday, I want to know what you feel about the publication (at any rate at present) of your paper to the Academy. I have been having some correspondence about it with some of our Fellows (including Brice [sic],36 Reay,37 and Ramsay38) and also with the Foreign Office, which I thought it proper to consult on a matter which deals with international relations. Everybody appreciates highly the tone and general intention of the paper. The F. O. letter says ‘The general conception and the spirit seems to me to be admirable; as against German men of learning we, on our side, should show ourselves as reasonable as possible. … It is a fine and generous attempt to get over the situation by an appeal to the Germans themselves’. But there is an equally general doubt whether its publication under the present circumstances might do more harm than good. So far as can be judged, Prince Lichnowsky’s Memorandum has

116

116  Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch not produced the effect which it ought to have done, and which possibly in the long run it will do. Prof. Troeltsch, to whom you specially appeal, has in effect rejected the appeal in advance. And in spite of all that you say, and that was said by others at the meeting, emphatically to the contrary, there is great likelihood that phrases would be separated from their context and the whole misrepresented as a sign of weakening in England. And its publication just now would be taken in connection with the German successes in the field. Should you be content, then, to leave the paper unpublished, at any rate for the present? It will have served a good purpose in placing the matter before the Academy, and reminding us of our collective, as well as individual, responsibilities after the war, and it will remain on record that the Academy discussed the subject, and dealt with it in a spirit which will compare favourably in the eyes of posterity with the action of scholars in Germany. I hope this suggestion will not be disagreeable to you and remain, Yours very sincerely, F.G. Kenyon.39 Sanday was evidently not happy with effectively being silenced as a further letter from Kenyon written a week later testifies: My dear Sanday, I am very far indeed from thinking that your paper was a discredit either to the Academy or to yourself. I think (and I am sure everyone else to whom I have spoken thinks in effect the same) that it was a generous and high-​minded utterance, for which unfortunately the times are not ripe; and that the fault of their uniqueness rests wholly with the Germans. I cannot but hope that some day the legion of devils that possesses them will be cast out, and they will come to their right mind; but there is little sign of it as yet. Lichnowsky’s Memorandum will be invaluable as evidence in the course of history. But for the present opinion in Germany is not prepared to admit its force, and discounts it as an expression of wounded armour which in part it is. Meanwhile your paper will remain on record, and some day a reasonable time may come for its publication. I am most grateful for the kindness with which you have received my suggestion, and I hope you do not bear any grudge against me for having invited you to write the paper. Yours very sincerely, F.G. Kenyon.40

Troeltsch’s response Troeltsch himself was deeply offended by Sherrington’s memorandum and made his views known in a letter to the Frankfurter Zeitung of 30 May.

117

Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch 117 The Editor of The Times learnt of this from a telegram from Amsterdam, a copy of which he sent to Sherrington on 4 June.41 He withheld from publishing this, however, until he had received the Frankfurter letter itself. A  short report was duly published in The Times on 8 June stating that Troeltsch ‘is content to say that “as the malicious form of the report of the proceedings may perhaps be due to the reporting of The Times, an answer to the invitation is inadvisable before it can be based upon the official report of the meeting” ’. The Times pointed out that Troeltsch studiously avoided any reference to the report of his views of 11 May and informed its readers that Sherrington wrote the memorandum immediately after holding the conversation in 1907. Concerning Sherrington, Troeltsch asserted that ‘it is of course possible in itself that he has totally forgotten a conversation, the alleged purport of the conversation is in all circumstances absolutely false’. The actual letter in the Frankfurter Zeitung was phrased rather more strongly: I cannot at all remember either a Mr Sherrington or a political conversation with him in those days. But I especially have never thought and likewise, naturally, never said things such as the ones reported here. The whole matter is either a mistake or a pure invention. A  conversation which I  have totally forgotten is, of course, in itself possible, but the alleged content is under all circumstances absolutely false.42 In response, Sherrington felt called to draft another letter to The Times answering Troeltsch’s allegations that he was lying: It seems satisfactory to learn that Prof. Troeltsch disclaims now the views he expressed in the autumn of 1907. As to the fact of what he said, that is not a question of my memory against his; it is his memory against my note written the next day. I do not admit for the moment that I mistook his words. Though not attaching extreme importance to his expressions, I was surprised by them sufficiently to jot them down when in the train the following day I travelled to stay with friends at Frankfurt. My surprise was partly, if I may venture to say so, at such views coming from one of such obvious ability and knowledge, partly at their having the adhesion of one who by his title and dress was apparently a Christian theologist [sic], hence wondering if they might be a current of the time. After return home I spoke of the Prorektor’s views to various friends, among others to the Vice-​Chancellor of my own University. The interest was for most of us I fancy a fleeting one. Yet I preserved by chance my notes. In 1916, coming again across them again, I had a typed copy made; last month when the name of Prof. Troeltsch became somewhat prominent in your columns I thought the notes might be of interest to your readers and without comment on their contents sent them to you.

118

118  Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch As to the trend of the Pro-​rektor’s conversation, it may be relevant that, each time we met, he had failed to divest his mind that I was of America; one is reluctant to suppose however that on that ground he hoped for a possible convert to the views.43 The only corroborating evidence for the authenticity of Sherrington’s memorandum appears to be a postcard of 18 May 1918 addressed to his wife from an unknown correspondent who remarked: Those Heidelberg notes of the Professors [sic] are intensely interesting now –​one remembers hearing from him at the time of those conversations –​& how struck he was with the enemy point of view –​but how little impression it made on certain of our wiseacres at home! One is so glad that Dr Sherrington has published these notes –​they may have some effect if anything can turn some of the idiots. And if this is a reluctant enemy  –​what of the hot heads over there? & they are the majority.44 The after-​effects continued over the next few years. It was raised on a number of occasions during the efforts to gain a platform for Troeltsch, which resulted in an ultimately tragic delay which meant that Troeltsch was never able to visit Britain, which will be discussed in the next chapter.

Conclusion The Sanday–​Sherrington–​Troeltsch affair reflects the failure of any attempt at a negotiated peace at the end of the First World War. Even though William Sanday was able to offer constructive proposals throughout the war, even in the heightened propaganda of the final German offensive of 1918, such construction was soon silenced by the Foreign Office and by the inexplicable intervention of Sherrington. Troeltsch, together with his friend, Max Weber, sought similar constructive proposals as a way to lasting peace: this was the meaning of the compromise between Realpolitik and Sittlichkeit.45 Sanday, too, was able to make such a compromise: indeed his method was one of dialogue with even the most extreme opponents. Sherrington almost single-​ handedly put an end to such constructive proposals and any thought of compromise, since there were few others of Sanday’s stature who took up the cause of a negotiated peace. The repercussions of Sherrington’s intervention eventually prevented Troeltsch coming to England, which perhaps hindered English theological thinking by bolstering its tradition of extreme insularity. What is certain is that the fertile theological interaction between Britain and Germany which existed in the years before the First World War and which is witnessed to by the wealth of translations would never be the same again.46

119

Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch 119 Sherrington’s action, however, was symptomatic of the whole mood of the last years of the war. Such a mood tragically survived virtually unscathed during the discussions which led to the Versailles treaty. In a brilliant article for the Church Quarterly Review, Bevan pointed to the lost opportunities caused by the lingering patriotism of the British Press, which refused to recognize the constructive elements in Germany; all that mattered was that the enemy should be painted in the darkest colours: ‘A defence on these lines for an economy of truth during a war may be valid’, but the ‘new situation required a great change of mental processes on our part. For now it was just as important to take full account of any element of good there might be in the defeated nation’.47 In the ‘darkness and horror of the first weeks of defeat’, Bevan goes on, ‘a great light arose in the idea of democracy’ which had destroyed the ‘idol’ of Machtpolitik and captivated the German people.48 ‘Having utterly lost confidence in themselves, broken, humiliated, bewildered, they were ready to take almost any hand which they thought would lead them the right way’. Tragically, however, the victorious allies were too profoundly attached to the ‘whole system of the militarist-​bureacratic State’ to take heed of the constructive forces in Germany. Thus Bevan concludes: England had a chance at the end of last year of splendid action which will perhaps never recur in our history. If our object was not so much to recoup ourselves for our material losses as to restore to its place the moral fellowship of the world a nation which had gone astray after false gods, we might at that moment have done practically anything we liked with Germany. Instead of that we were convulsively yelling to election candidates: ‘Make Germany pay’, and, whilst the German children were dying or becoming stunted in mind and body for want of food, we tightened the blockade. Is it the true God whom we follow?49 The First World War marked the virtual end of the intimate theological relationship between England and Germany which had proved so fertile in the years leading up to the War. The tragedy is that theology was only a very minor player in the drama of international relations.

Notes 1 Sir Frederic George Kenyon (1863–​1952), Cataloguer of Greek Papyri, Director of the British Museum from 1909 until 1930, Fellow of the British Academy from 1903 and President from 1917 until 1921. He succeeded Israel Gollancz as Secretary in 1930. In 1917 he was active in the Inns of Court Officer Training Corps and had risen to the rank of lieutenant-​colonel. 2 Ernst Troeltsch (1865‒1923), Privatdozent in Göttingen (1891), extraordinarius in systematic theology in Bonn (1892), ordinarius in Theology in Heidelberg (1894), in Philosophy in Berlin (1915). For a bibliography of Troeltsch’s extensive output, see F. W. Graf and Hartmut Ruddies, Ernst

120

120  Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch Troeltsch Bibliographie (Tübingen:  J. C.  B. Mohr, 1982). There is now an extensive Kritische Gesamtausgabe edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, Christian Albrecht and Gangolf Hübinger (Berlin:  de Guryter, from 2001). There is as yet no critical biography; the most recent comprehensive biography and introduction is by Hans-​Georg Drescher, Ernst Troeltsch: Leben und Werk (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1991); English translation by John Bowden: Ernst Troeltsch: His Life and Work, (London: SCM, 1992); see also Karl-​Ernst Apfelbacher, Frömmigkeit und Wissenschaft: Ernst Troeltsch und sein theologisches Programm (Munich, Paderborn, Vienna:  Schöningh, 1978). For a comprehensive overview, see Mark D. Chapman, Ernst Troeltsch and Liberal Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). 3 The Times, 17 Sept 1920. 4 Before he lost his fortune in 1921, Edwyn Robert Bevan was a freelance academic. He then became a lecturer in Hellenistic history at King’s College, London. During the War he was seconded to the Foreign Office. 5 Edwyn Bevan, Brothers All: The War and the Race Question (London: Oxford University Press, 1914), 14–​15. 6 Kenyon to Sanday, 22 October 1917, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.124 (I) no. 88. 7 Sanday to Kenyon, 24 October 1917, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.128 no. 254. 8 Gollancz to Sanday, 11 April 1918, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.123 no. 339. 9 Gollancz to Sanday, 18 April 1918, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.123 no. 342. 10 Bevan to Sanday, 11 April 1918, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.140 no.36. 11 Sanday to Bevan, 13 April 1918, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.128 no. 266. 12 Sanday to Bevan, 16 April 1918, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.128 no. 268. 13 Bevan to Sanday, 21 April 1918, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.140 no.38. 14 ‘Die deutsche Idee von der Freiheit’, Neue Runschau 27 (1916): 50–​75. The volume also included two other essays by Troeltsch, ‘Die Ideen von 1914’, 605–​24, and ‘Privatmoral und Staatsmoral’, 145–​69. These were included in Hans Baron (ed.), Deutscher Geist und Westeuropa, Tübingen, 1925 (reprint, Aalen: Scientia, 1966). See Peter Sprengel, Geschichte der deutschsprachigen Literatur, 1900–​ 1918: von der Jahrhundertwende bis zum Ende des ersten Weltkriegs (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2004), 789. 15 ‘Junius’, Chronik, Neue Rundschau 27 (1916): 96–​103. 16 Otto von Gierke, Unsere Friedensziele (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1917). 17 This is most likely to be Wolfgang Heine, Zu Deutschlands Erneuerung (Jena: Diederichs, 1916). 18 Bevan was an active member of von Hügel’s London Society for the Study of Religion. 19 Bevan’s handwriting is difficult to make out. 20 Gollancz to Sanday, 18 April 1918, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.123 no.  342:  ‘It might be well, if you agree, to prepare a short summary for “The Times,” otherwise the Report, if any, in the paper may prove to be unsatisfactory.’ 21 There is no record of the paper itself in the British Academy Archives. I am grateful to P. W. H. Brown, secretary of the British Academy, for confirming this. 22 The guilt of Germany for the war of German aggression:  Prince Karl Lichnowsky’s memorandum; being the story of his ambassadorship at London from 1912 to August, 1914, together with Foreign Minister von Jagow’s reply

121

Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch 121 (New York: Putnam’s, 1918); see also Prince Karl Lichnowsky, My Mission to London, 1912–​1914 (London: Cassell, 1918). 23 Troeltsch had in fact been at Berlin since the summer of 1914. 24 Ernst Troeltsch, ‘Verschiebungen der inneren Fronten’, Münchner Neueste Nachrichten (6 April 1918), edition 172 and 173, 1. 25 P. Chalmers Mitchell, Evolution and the War (London: John Murray, 1915). 26 Sanday to Mitchell, 15 May 1918, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.128 no. 258. 27 The Times, 18 May 1918. 28 Sir Charles Scott Sherrington (1857‒1952) studied in Cambridge and London. In 1895 he became Holt Professor of Physiology at Liverpool, and in 1913 he became Waynflete Professor at Oxford. From 1920 to 1925 he was President of the Royal Society, receiving an Order of Merit in 1924 and a Nobel Prize in 1932. He was Gifford Lecturer in 1937–​38. See John C. Eccles and William C. Gibson, Sherrington, His Life and Thought (Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer, 1979). I  am particularly grateful to Mrs Linda Atkinson, librarian of the Sherrington Library, Oxford, for supplying me with the relevant unpublished and as yet uncatalogued papers. 29 Eccles and Gibson, Sherrington, His Life and Thought, 31. 30 Those passages quoted in The Times are printed in bold script. The memorandum was also reported in a letter dated 25 June 1918 and entitled ‘The Cause of the War’ in the Journal of the American Medical Association 71 (1918): 297–​ 8. The failure of Germans to respond to the Lichnowsky disclosures had ‘a special interest for physicians in view of a memorandum just published in the Times by distinguished physiologist, Prof. C.S. Sherrington’. The passages of the memorandum cited are italicised. There are two copies of the memorandum in Sherrington’s papers: a typescript of the actual letter sent to The Times and a handwritten version which was made on Oxford examination paper in pencil and which has been titled by the executor: ‘Notes made by C.S.S. when @ Heidelberg’. Sherrington’s title is ‘Frid. Aug.16th 1907. Mem. of conversation’. There is verbatim agreement between the two versions. 31 The report in the Journal of the American Medical Association then concludes with a statement that ‘soon after the outbreak of war the Berlin correspondent in his letter to THE JOURNAL referred to the war as “an attack” on Germany by Russia, France and England’ (298) 32 In manuscript, simply ‘Prorektor’. 33 Stewart to Sherrington, 17 May 1918, Sherrington Papers (uncatalogued). 34 Warren to Sherrington, 17 May 1918, Sherrington Papers (uncatalogued). 35 The Times, 24 May 1918. 36 James Bryce (1838–​1922) was Founding Fellow and President of the FBA from 1913 to 1917. 37 Donald Jacob Baron Mackay, Lord Reay (1839–​1921) was the first President of the British Academy from 1901 to 1907. 38 Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–​1939), Regius Professor of Humanity at Aberdeen, was another founder member of the British Academy. 39 Kenyon to Sanday, 1 June 1918, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.124 (I) no. 90 40 Kenyon to Sanday, postmarked 8 June 1918, Sanday Papers, Bod. MS Eng. misc. d.124 (I) no. 84. 41 The Editor of The Times to Sherrington, Sherrington Papers, 4 June 1918. There is no copy of the telegram in Sherrington’s correspondence. 42 Cited in Hans Rollmann, ‘Ernst Troeltsch, Friedrich von Hügel and the Student Christian Movement’, The Downside Review 101 (1983): 217–​26, here 223. 43 There are two drafts of this letter in Sherrington’s papers. This is the more polished of the two. The letter does not seem to have been sent.

122

122  Sanday, Sherrington, and Troeltsch 44 Unknown correspondent to Ethel Mary Sherrington, 18 May 1918, uncatalogued, Sherrington Papers. The rest of the card is indecipherable. It is signed S.C.M-​S. 45 See above, Chapter  2. David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley, The Peculiarities of German History. Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth Century Germany (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1984) emphasize the democratic strand in German thought. The rise and temporary success of the Deutsche Demokratische Partei in which Troeltsch was a leading member witnesses to the democratic tendencies of many liberal Churchmen. See Werner Stephan, Aufstieg und Verfall der Linksliberalismus, 1918–​1933. Geschichte der Deutschen Demokratischen Partei (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1973). 46 On this see esp. Robert Morgan, ‘Non Angli sed Angeli: Some Anglican Reactions to German Gospel Criticism’ in New Studies in Theology 1, edited by Stephen Sykes and Derek Holmes (London: Duckworth, 1980), 1–​30. 47 Edwyn Bevan, ‘The Problem of the New Germany’, Church Quarterly Review 88 (1919): 253–​71. On the attitude of the German liberal Churchmen to the peace, see esp. Frank J. Gordon, ‘Liberal German Churchmen and the First World War’, German Studies Review 41 (1981): 39–​62, esp. 56–​62. 48 Bevan, ‘The Problem of the New Germany’, 268–​9. 49 Bevan, ‘The Problem of the New Germany’, 270. A remarkably similar attitude was displayed by John Maynard Keynes:  ‘The policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation … should be abhorrent and detestable … Some preach it in the name of justice. In the great events of man’s history, in the unwinding of the complex fates of nations, justice is not so simple. And if it were, nations are not authorised, by religion or natural morals, to visit on the children of their enemies the misdoings of parents or of rulers’ (John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Collected Works, vol. ii) (London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1971), 142. See also 31, 34).

123

7 The ‘sad story’ of Ernst Troeltsch’s proposed British Lectures of 1923

Although Troeltsch’s lectures published as Christian Thought1 are among the last of his writings and might therefore reveal something of the final direction of his thought, they have had remarkably little influence in subsequent theology. In Great Britain, where they had been intended to be delivered, this was partly due to a continuing anti-​German sentiment2 and partly because English theology was locked in bitter dispute (as usual) over the doctrine of the Incarnation, particularly after Hastings Rashdall’s ‘heretical’ speech at the Girton Conference of the Churchmen’s Union in 1921.3 Troeltsch’s chiefly ethical concerns in the lectures were far removed from such doctrinal controversy, and seemed unsuited to an English-​speaking audience more interested in theological dispute than political reconstruction. In some ways the fate of the lectures is a commentary on English theology’s failure to take the post-​war situation seriously. Similarly, in Germany the changed political circumstances of the 1920s, which were marked by a growing radicalism on left and right, were hardly likely to provide a large audience for this type of reflection.4 Troeltsch’s vision of international co-​operation and compromise to overcome the struggles between nations5 is provided with an almost ironic counterpart in his own sufferings, which ultimately led to his premature death on 1 February 1923 when, in the words of Clement C. J. Webb,6 the Oriel Professor of the Philosophy of Religion in the University of Oxford, ‘he succumbed to a sudden illness which the privations entailed by the economic situation in Germany on men with fixed incomes had ill-​prepared him to resist’.7 Troeltsch’s constructive proposals for the future of Europe, which presumably hint at the likely concerns of the unwritten second volume of Der Historismus und seine Probleme, failed to attract much interest or many sales: indeed, it is a depressing commentary on international diplomacy that Troeltsch’s lectures were likely to be remaindered within a few months of publication. In short, as Webb remarked in his review of the book in the Hibbert Journal, the ‘story of this book is a sad one’.8 It is perhaps because of the negligible effect exerted by the lectures that the circumstances which led to their writing have been hitherto researched only fragmentarily.9

124

124  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 The present chapter offers a detailed investigation of the events behind Troeltsch’s invitation to speak in Britain and of the subsequent publication of the lectures. The story offers a salutary reminder of the complexities of international academic relations as well as the over-​riding power of national chauvinism which can easily silence constructive voices in debates about reconstruction.10

Troeltsch and the Oxford Summer School for Theology, 1909 Although he never visited the United Kingdom, Troeltsch was well acquainted with some aspects of British thought, particularly that of the Enlightenment11 and the English Civil War period, about which he had written in some depth in his substantial history of Christian social teachings, The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches and Groups.12 Nevertheless he lamented ‘the glaring deficiency’ of never having had the opportunity of looking closely at the Anglican Church,13 although he managed to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, at Trinity Church in Boston during his trip to the United States for the International Congress of Arts and Sciences which accompanied the Louisiana Purchase Exhibition in 1904.14 Troeltsch had originally planned to return to Germany from this trip via England to visit his friend and correspondent, Baron Friedrich von Hügel,15 but had to go straight back to Heidelberg to comfort his wife after her mother’s sudden death.16 After Troeltsch’s death, von Hügel reprinted one of Troeltsch’s letters from this time in the Times Literary Supplement where he expressed his desire to come to London and where he asked God to prevent further escalation in the conflict between the nations.17 Troeltsch and von Hügel had become friends with one another, having first corresponded in 1896. Von Hügel visited Troeltsch in Heidelberg on 3 May 1902 spending the whole of the following day with him. Von Hügel recounted his experience of this meeting to the Catholic Modernist George Tyrrell on 4 June 1902: [Troeltsch] has the most sensitive consciousness of the complexity and relativity of all history and its evidences; an extraordinary speculative, metaphysical competence and revealing power; and finally a truly touching spiritual and personally devotional sense and experience, which runs through all and hallows, steadies and deepens it. And his knowledge of the history, of the literature, of the present requirements of all these three things is astonishing; and his honesty, and straight clearness and clearness of vision is, of itself a true moral tonic, which comes from a robust, truly manly faith, and leads straight on to its strengthening in others.18 It was through von Hügel’s mediation that in 1908 Troeltsch’s name came up in connection with the Oxford Summer School for Theology planned

125

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 125 for 1909. Von Hügel’s Oxford contact was his friend, Clement Webb,19 at the time a Fellow of Magdalen College, whom he had first met in 1896 through the Synthetic Society for philosophers and theologians from across the denominations interested in religious belief.20 Von Hügel hoped that by stimulating an understanding of Troeltsch in Webb, who shared an interest in the theological implications of the claims of other religions,21 he might (ultimately) be able to persuade the Oxford Theology Faculty to award Troeltsch an honorary Doctorate.22 Troeltsch’s name was thus put forward as a possible lecturer for the Summer School of 1909. The Oxford Summer School was a new venture funded in part by the Hibbert Fund which had been set up in 1847 by the anti-​Trinitarian, Robert Hibbert (1769–​1849) for ‘the spread of Christianity in its most simple and intelligible form’.23 The Summer School was intended as a period of further theological study and refreshment principally for parish clergy. Through his many contacts von Hügel was able to introduce many of the Continent’s leading figures to the prominent English theologians of the day. He also suggested suitable reading to his correspondents, particularly among the Catholic modernists, most importantly, Alfred Loisy.24 Webb, for instance, wrote to von Hügel:  ‘I was reading lately with great interest M.  Loisy’s “Quelques Lettres” and it made an impression upon me in some ways different from that made by his former books that I have read’.25 It was through the mediation of von Hügel that Webb was asked at a meeting of the planning committee for the Summer School on 3 December 1908 to sound out the possibility of Loisy as a speaker. At the same meeting Troeltsch’s name was also mentioned, although it is not clear whether this came from Webb himself.26 Three days later Webb wrote to von Hügel: Besides the name of Loisy, that of Prof. Troeltsch came up. In respect to him, I am not empowered to say more than that the committee of management would be glad to know whether you thought he would be able to come, and whether he could, if he came, lecture in English. It was thought undesirable to have lectures in German, so that if T[roeltsch] does not know English well enough to lecture in it, that would be considered an objection to inviting him. Further, as only two or three foreign scholars could be invited, other names would have to be considered before a decision to write to Prof. Troeltsch was taken.27 Von Hügel replied to Webb on 12 December 190828 about the proposal to invite Loisy and Troeltsch to lecture. In a second letter to Webb he expressed his desire, as Webb notes in his diary, that ‘his part in inviting Loisy [be] kept confidential  –​owing to his passionate desire not, without necessity, to be deprived of the sacraments of his church’:29 You may wonder at all this caution. My answer is that I  love, with all that I am, the Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church and my

126

126  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 acknowledged appurtenance to that Church; and again that, for myself, I am very certain of fruitful reforms, at least now and henceforth, being possible, at least for this Church, from within. I feel then the primary importance of nowhere, in the degree compatible with honour, adding one drop to the already pretty full cup of official anger, and possibly precipitating my suspension from those privileges.30 The Executive Committee of the Summer School met again on 18 December 1908, at Manchester College, the Free Christian College in Oxford, where the business of Loisy and Troeltsch was discussed. Along with Webb, the meeting included such dignitaries as the Unitarian theologian Joseph Estlin Carpenter (1844–​1927), Vice Principal of Manchester College, and the liberal Anglicans Hastings Rashdall and Alexander James Carlyle (1861–​1943), Fellow of University College, Oxford, 1895–​1919, and Rector of St Martin and All Saints, Oxford.31 Webb wrote to von Hügel two days later about the decision: I did not show your letter to any one, but informed them of the points it contained and told them that you wished your part in it considered confidential. This they quite understood to be natural. I spoke in a similar way to [William] Sanday and Driver,32 whom I met independently.33 It was thought best, in view of what you said, to postpone inviting Loisy until the result of his candidature for Jean Révell’s chair should be announced.34 But in case he should be eventually invited, I should like to ask you how far you could accept Rashdall, Charles35 or A. J. Carlyle as Anglicans whose share in the invitation would carry off the participation of Carpenter and the Hibbert trustees? There may be difficulty otherwise in raising four names. The number of people actually co-​ operating in the scheme here is not large. Sanday has promised me that he would sign an invitation. Driver, though favourable to it being sent, would not, on the ground that L[oisy] has passed from O.T. to N.T. and that D[river] would perhaps be thought to be trespassing outside his own province in inviting him. It seems to me an odd point of view in some ways but that is his decision. I have no doubt that Rashdall and Carlyle would sign and probably also Charles, whom you know:  but I do not know whether a quartette of Anglican clerics could otherwise be made up … I think it is probable that Troeltsch will not be invited, [unless some other pe]36 at any rate among the first.37 There was evidently a great deal of sensitivity required to organize an invite from members of the Oxford Faculty to Loisy even to an unofficial gathering such as the Summer School in Theology. Troeltsch was perhaps an even more difficult choice than Loisy. In the event Loisy was given the Paris Chair and did not come. Nevertheless, as has been shown through

127

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 127 the course of this volume, many Oxford theologians had close contact with their German counterparts, which persisted until well after the outbreak of war in 1914.38

The invitation after the First World War In the years following the First World War Troeltsch became the subject of a most extraordinary outburst from Charles Sherrington, which I discussed at length in the previous chapter. This undoubtedly soured the climate for any invitation to ask him to the United Kingdom. Nevertheless von Hügel was active in the years immediately following the War to secure a lecture platform for Troeltsch. Again it was Webb, who was appointed Oriel Professor of Philosophy of Religion in 1920, who was instrumental in representing Troeltsch’s cause in the Oxford Faculty. Von Hügel had become a major figure in the British religious world by this stage: his wider influence was at its peak in this period and he could attract a large audience.39 On 15 June 1920 he was presented with an honorary Doctor of Divinity from Oxford, the first Catholic to have been so honoured since the Reformation. Von Hügel was a frequent visitor at the Webbs’ house and, at Webb’s invitation, he was involved on a number of important University Committees.40 Webb also gave him the opportunity of lecturing before the University. He wrote to von Hügel on 13 February 1921 suggesting the possibility of some time lecturing ‘for me’ here as our phrase is: i.e. giving two or three or four lectures under my auspices as Professor? I don’t want to bother you with a definite invitation just now. But if there is any philosophico-​theological subject on which you feel disposed to talk to an Oxford audience in the course of the next year, I should be delighted and honoured to give Oxford the opportunity of hearing you in this way. It is part of my duty as Professor to ask lecturers to lecture for him thus.41 Von Hügel refused the invitation, citing ill-​health brought on by his chronic asthma, which greatly disappointed Webb since ‘I could not carry out my statutable [i.e. statutory] duty of forwarding “the study of the Christian religion” in the University of Oxford [better] than by having you to stimulate it by your words’.42 At the same time von Hügel was working hard elsewhere to secure other possible platforms for Troeltsch. One such was the Summer Conference of the Student Christian Movement to be held at Swanwick in 1922. Von Hügel wrote to many of his contacts hoping to interest them in this proposal. Of these the most important was the translator of Immanuel Kant, Norman Kemp Smith (1872–​1958), Professor of Logic and Metaphysics in Edinburgh of Edinburgh from 1919 to 1945, with

128

128  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 whom the Baron had kept up a lively correspondence for a number of years and to whom he had introduced Troeltsch’s writings.43 Having thus aroused his enthusiasm for Troeltsch von Hügel solicited Kemp Smith’s specific help for the Swanwick Conference: … I want you also there, to help with Troeltsch. You know what a cripple I am with my deafness. I so much want a man at the meeting who knows German well, who hears all right, who appreciates T[roeltsch], and who could and would –​especially with the questions and in larger conversations –​look out for T[roeltsch], explain to him when he did not entirely understand etc. I believe this visit of his to England (a week or 10 days with us after 3 days at Swanwick) may really do great good. Come and help to make it a success. I can (apart from your huge activities already booked) think of but one objection –​that the meeting might somehow commit you to some ecclesiasticism etc. If you suspect this, pray be reassured –​the audience will be as many coloured, as non-​committed as a whole as any one could wish. And yet your fine constructive fundamental side could have full play. Don’t, don’t say ‘No’; say promptly yes to Your aff[ectionate] old Friend F. v. Hügel.44 Kemp Smith replied on 9 September 1921 expressing interest in Troeltsch’s visit and suggesting (perhaps surprisingly given his competence as a translator) that the Baron had somewhat over-​estimated his abilities at ‘jabbering’ in German. ‘However, if I could be of any service at all’, he went on, ‘I should not like to decline your very kind suggestion, & should certainly do my best to come to the Swanwick Summer School. The difficulty of any ecclesiastical entanglement does not alarm me’.45 Although Kemp Smith’s talents were in the end not required for the Swanwick Conference, von Hügel was later to build on this initial enthusiasm in his negotiations to bring Troeltsch to the United Kingdom in 1923. Von Hügel had presumably assumed that Troeltsch’s invitation to speak at Swanwick would create few problems but was evidently unaware of Troeltsch’s reputation as somewhat unorthodox. In the doctrinal crisis of 1921 it did not seem prudent to have anybody without unblemished orthodox credentials to speak since this would mean that the Student Christian Movement, which had not yet moved to its later liberal position and still included conservative Evangelicals,46 would be appearing to give its sanction to the New Theology. Troeltsch was consequently not invited. It was apparently a letter of David Smith Cairns (1862–​1942), Professor of Dogmatics and Apologetics in the United Free Church College, Aberdeen that tipped the balance against Troeltsch. Cairns, who had studied under Wilhelm Herrmann in Marburg, made an important point which proved itself by

129

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 129 later events: ‘almost nobody in this country (i.e. the United Kingdom) knows anything about him, and the likelihood is that only a minute fraction of the camp will really follow him, … Are you going to have Troeltsch’s followers speak with your imprimatur in following years?’47 This failure greatly distressed the Baron,48 especially as he had already written to Troeltsch and would feel embarrassed about withdrawing his invitation. After the failure of the Swanwick invitation, von Hügel sought a number of alternative platforms for Troeltsch. He explained this in a letter to Kemp Smith, where he remarked that he had been having a good deal of bother and distress about Troeltsch –​ about his speaking at Swanwick next July. Mr Tatlow had spoken of the acceptance by the Executive Committee of the C.S.M. [sic] as very likely, and I had thereupon told T[roeltsch] of my plan for him, and secured his undertaking to come to England (his first visit) next July. But, alas, the majority of the Exec[utive] Committee in Sept[ember] were hotly against having T[roeltsch]; that the Movement’s Constitution requires the speakers at this meeting to be accepters of the historic Creeds, and that if they accepted T[roeltsch], they would have no standing ground against accepting Quakers, Unitarians and Theosophists.  –​ Certain friends of the Movement have been consulted and now, at Christmas, I have been definitely told that they cannot have T[roeltsch] at Swanwick, and propose his coming instead to the London meeting of their paid secretaries, and to speak to them. I wrote a long explanatory letter to Tatlow49 in November; but tho’ I still feel it unanswerable, it, as you see, failed in its object. –​I have now written to Clement Webb at Oxford, whether he could not undertake to get a meeting together there for T[roeltsch] at the end of July. I have done this, in hopes, when I presently write about all this woe to Troeltsch, of having two substitutes for Swanwick to offer him. But I have a sort of an impression that I may not know the real reason of this commotion, and that it has to do, in part at least, with T[roeltsch]’s Germanness. They say that they want me, that I am all right for them. But I want to postpone any decision till I know whether he will still come this year. If he does, I shall reserve myself for accompanying him. He is absolutely engaged to the London University for 1923, and may, very possibly, now prefer coming in 1922, which anyhow I had difficulty in getting him to promise.50 From this letter it becomes clear that von Hügel had written to Webb asking him to invite Troeltsch in the summer as a compensation for the failure of Swanwick. It is also clear that a separate speaking engagement with London University had been organized.51 Webb replied to von Hügel on 31 December 1921 with two proposals: My feeling about the matter is this: (1) that it would scarcely be right to bring Troeltsch to England only to speak at one of these September

130

130  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 meetings [i.e. Oxford Summer Schools]; he could without giving himself so much trouble address such a one when in England for his London lectures in 1923. (2) that, although I could, and gladly would, ask Troeltsch to lecture ‘for me’ at Oxford this could not be at the end of July, which would be in the vacation, and would be a time at which it would be impossible to ensure him of an audience. On the other hand, if he were to come in May or June, I could, as I say, ask him to lecture. But I know by experience how hard it is to promise that a good audience can be secured for a lecturer who is not really widely known to Oxford residents. Moreover, while I  feel convinced that he would receive a courteous welcome from many, I should not like to say that some might not wish to join in it, in view of the letter which as you remember my colleague Sherrington (who is now President of the Royal Society) wrote about his attitude to England some time ago. I cannot help therefore concluding, especially in view of what you say of his own wishes, that it would be far better for him to defer his visit to this country until 1923; but then I shall hope, if I am still holding my professorship, to invite him to lecture at Oxford as well as in London, if he would, in your judgement, be willing to do so. And there might also be an opportunity for the Student Christian Movement people to hear him at one of their meetings of secretaries. He might very properly be asked to add such an address to his other engagements, but hardly to come to England merely to give it. But I  do very much hope that when he comes to England in 1923, he may be heard in Oxford as well as in London, and I should be glad if you would find out from him whether an invitation to give one or two lectures there would be acceptable to him.52 From this it is clear that Troeltsch would be lecturing in Britain only in 1923 and would give lectures in both London and Oxford. By 1922 academic relations between Britain and Germany had begun to improve. This was partly a result of an extremely successful tour of Britain by Albert Einstein in 1921 which also helped make the subject of relativity, of which Troeltsch was the leading theological exponent, a live issue. Sir Ernest Barker (1874–​1960),53 Principal of King’s College, London, who invited Einstein (and later Troeltsch) to lecture there, noted the tension in the atmosphere in post-​war Britain in his memoirs: I was almost terrified by the commotion which his lecture excited, but I was still more elated by its success. Feeling against Germany was very much stronger than it has been since the war of 1939–​45; and there were fears that the lecture might have been disturbed or even prevented. Those fears proved groundless.54 The following year the Oxford Theology Faculty played host to Albert Schweitzer, who gave a ‘very vigorous’ lecture on 17 February 1922. A day

131

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 131 later Webb dined with him and ‘liked him very much’.55 On 3 March 1922 Schweitzer gave a paper (in French) to the Society of Historical Theology56 where, Webb reports, he discoursed for more than an hour on the present significance of eschatology for our religious life –​it was extremely interesting. He ended in a confession of inability to combine in one view the revelation of God in nature and that in our moral nature: we have to acknowledge a mystery here and live by the light of the love of God and obedience to his will with an ‘optimism of the will’ independent alike of optimism or pessimism with respect to the progress of the world.57 At the same time as von Hügel was actively soliciting Webb’s support for Troeltsch in Oxford, he was also engaged in correspondence with Kemp Smith to ensure him a Scottish platform. He wrote on 3 June 1922 noting that he had secured Troeltsch a hearing in London:58 I am very glad that you are taking up the Troeltsch affair now. I have found out from the Registrar to the London University that, as Troeltsch’s Lectures there have been put off to next year, and they have accepted, March (1923) for the delivery of these 4 Lectures. I have been trying to get the Cambridge people to arrange something for T.[roeltsch] then; but a hitch has occurred –​this time, not as to his theological, but as to his political, correctness.59 His attempt to obtain a platform at Cambridge under the auspices of F. C. Burkitt, the Norrisian Professor of Divinity, had not proved successful. That letter to the ‘Times’ of Professor Sherrington, reproducing bits of his, S[herrington]’s diary, giving his interview with T[roeltsch]. in 1912 (?) appeared a good bit of a man for State Omnipotence, a non-​moral state etc., is being brought up against T.[roeltsch] and any plan to honour him. One of the Cambridge Professors (a personal friend of mine) who began by offering his Lecture-​Room for T.[roeltsch] to address his students, now first requires evidence from me that T.[roeltsch] is not what that interview seemed to show he was. I am getting 3 sets of documents, in typed form, to send to this friend.60 Von Hügel reports that he had asked Troeltsch to prepare a statement of his views, and would also include various other letters. He was convinced that T.[roeltsch] now is thoroughly moderate and Christian in his state-​ views; and that I  never knew nor suspected that he felt otherwise before the war. It is a fact that he refused to sign any of the Professorial Manifestos, and equally a fact that in the two big vols. of his collected works I  have found anti-​Junker bits but no chauvinism … (I believe,

132

132  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 but this is utterly confidential, that it is Prof. Sorley who, in Cambridge, keeps up this fierce Inquisition against all things and persons German). Troeltsch wrote to von Hügel on 15 June 1922 enclosing a written declaration in the form of a letter.61 In the private letter he remarks that he could never have expressed such views and that if there really was a diary then Mr. Sh must have misunderstood me or been under the influence of preconceived ideas. That he is particularly impressionable, I  learnt by chance recently from Utrecht. There the German pharmacologist Magnus was a close friend of his. But Sh. learnt that he was involved in German relief activity (Hilfsaktion) and broke off all contact with him and ignored every approach that was made until eventually he sent him a greeting in April 1922. By chance I happened to be there when this greeting arrived and could observe what a liberating and uplifting effect this had on Mr. Magnus, who is everything but a chauvinist. Mr. Sh. seems to have judged obviously patriotic behaviour under peculiarly inappropriate categories. When I  experienced these things in Utrecht I was able better to understand the contents of his diary. I never thought in the way it is written there and I cannot conceive how such a report came to see the light of day. Unfortunately I forgot the whole incident including the subject of the conversation. I can only say: I never thought in that way. I will say more in the second letter. That the men are honest in their thoughts I do not doubt and I do not contest that Mr Sh. is bona fides.62 Troeltsch then expresses how much he had fought bitterly against the German Nationalists. He concludes by affirming that he was never annexationist and any attempt to conquer a continent is nonsense. I cannot thus avoid stating that the Sherrington diary is in error in these points. That will not be welcome for Sherrington and his friends and will in turn arouse many misunderstandings –​and so we’re back where we started. Troeltsch’s second letter adopts a more restrained tone. Again he states that he can remember nothing of the whole affair maintaining that he never thought the things of which he was accused: I continually found myself to be in conflict with the pan-​Germans63 and chauvinists and I’ve also fought against the neo-​Prussian polemical spirit and have correspondingly been attacked in return. There must be some form of misunderstanding as I would not wish to doubt the honesty of such a prominent academic. The only thing that I can recognise

133

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 133 as one of my thoughts is that the German problem is a problem of over-​population. That is still the problem and indeed it is even more visible today. The solution rests in an economic expansion which must be peaceful. … Every policy for war … I always opposed.64 Troeltsch concludes with a statement of hope that Sherrington and his friends will be convinced of his own sincerity.65 At the same time Kemp Smith was seeking to muster support in Edinburgh for Troeltsch. He wrote to von Hügel on 29 June 1922 that he had got W.  P. Paterson66 and Curtis67 interested in the Troeltsch visit, & they will in due course get into direct touch with Troeltsch. They would like to give him an Honorary Degree, but fear the time is not ripe for that just yet. Paterson also stated in our Gifford Committee some time ago that he would hope that public feeling would allow of his being nominated sometime to the Gifford Lectures. Mackintosh68 and Principal Martin69 of the U[nited] F[ree] College (they are both admirers of your own works) are likewise much interested in Troeltsch, & would help towards having him visit Edinburgh next year under friendly auspices.70 Since there was a great deal more contact between Scottish theologians and Germany than from most of their English counterparts, it was perhaps easier to excite interest even in the relatively hostile post-​war climate. Troeltsch’s letters, however, proved unsuccessful in convincing Cambridge to offer him a platform on his planned visit. Speaking about the possibility of an Oxford lecture, von Hügel wrote to Webb on 28 September 1922 with a plea that the Swanwick business be not repeated. He informed Webb of the proposed dates for Troeltsch’s visit which would run from 7 to 21 March 1923. It was proposed that he should lecture before ‘Advanced Theological Students’ at London University in German, probably with an English synopsis, on dates yet to be fixed, and would be speaking before the London Society for the Study of Religion71 on 20 March 1923. Von Hügel made a passionate plea to Webb: I shall, of course, be very glad if you can organize some one meeting with some kind of address in Oxford. … I have had, for and with him, two failures and humiliations, and really that is enough for so noble a soul and so astonishingly rich a mind. The failure as to Swanwick (the Christian students) you know; it was due, not to anti-​Germanism, but to doubts about Troeltsch’s sufficient orthodoxy; and since then I have been scandalized by the one lay Professor of Theology there,72 who I know almost as well as you, backing out of doing anything for T.[roeltsch] … So, my kind Friend, if you find it possible to have T.[roeltsch] to some meeting

134

134  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 in Oxford, well and good. If not, T.[roeltsch] will not be brought by me to Oxford, just as I have decided for him as to Cambridge.73 Webb replied to von Hügel and immediately began the task of soliciting support for Troeltsch in Oxford.74 Webb received a letter from L. P. Jacks75 about Troeltsch. He also talked to C. H. Turner76 and wrote to A. C. Headlam.77 These conversations were evidently fruitful since by 24 October 1922 von Hügel had heard from Webb that he was prepared to offer Troeltsch a platform. He wrote to Kemp Smith: I have had a genuine consolation in the success of attempts to get Troeltsch invited to Oxford. Clement Webb is going to invite him to give an Address in his Lecture Room. But this is still a secret, please.78 Two days later on 26 October 1922 von Hügel sent Webb a copy of Troeltsch’s well-​known text Die Absolutheit des Christentums,79 so that he could make preparations for the visit, and on 28 October 1922 the theology professors met and discussed the proposals. All were present except Lock80 and Burney81 who had nevertheless been told, and ‘like those present, wished him asked. … Headlam thought V[ice] C[hancellor]82 had no favour to interfere and sh[oul]d not be asked’. However, Webb disagreed: ‘I think I shall tell him before I actually write to Tr[oeltsch]’.83 On 1 November 1922 von Hügel sent the dates of the London lectures so that final arrangements could be made. By 13 November 1922 Webb had begun his letter of invitation to Troeltsch, continuing work on it the following day. On 16 November 1922 he wrote to the Vice Chancellor making clear his final proposals, visiting von Hügel in London the following day. The Vice Chancellor sent a ‘v. satis’. reply on 18 November 1922 and on the same day Webb sent his letter of invitation to Troeltsch. On 6 November 1922 Troeltsch’s letter of acceptance reached Webb. Troeltsch in turn wrote to von Hügel on 7 December 1922 welcoming the various invitations and discussing the contents of the lectures. He felt confident about the London University and Oxford lectures but less so about the lecture for the London Society for the Study of Religion which caused him much heartache.84 By 29 December 1922 he had completed the Oxford lecture and was well under way with the London lectures, sending copies to von Hügel so that translations could be prepared.85 Meanwhile the Scottish platform seemed less secure. On 6 November 1922 Kemp Smith informed von Hügel that the prospect of Edinburgh inviting Troeltsch next Spring will not after all mature. Prof. Paterson is to have leave of absence during the Summer Term & Prof. Curtis who took the matter in hand says he cannot now himself undertake the arrangements. But I  shall speak again to Principal Martin & Prof. Mackintosh of the New College next time I see them.86

135

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 135 These further conversations evidently proved highly successful. On 17 December 1922 Kemp Smith could write to von Hügel that Prof. Mackintosh is now arranging for Troeltsch’s visit to Edinburgh, & am only sorry that I shall myself be away.87 At the last meeting of Senate W. P. Paterson moved and I seconded that Troeltsch be invited to lecture. There was, however, some opposition, & though the motion might very possibly have received a majority, it seemed better not to rouse antagonisms that are rapidly dying down  –​so the motion was withdrawn. This does not in any way stand in way of arrangements proposed by Mackintosh –​quite the reverse. With feeling towards France changing so rapidly, many of us believe that in a very few years it will be feasible to propose Troeltsch for the Gifford Lectureship.88 Thus, although Kemp Smith had been unsuccessful with the University, New College was to offer a platform to Troeltsch. Von Hügel responded with a delighted reply to Kemp Smith on 20 December 1922: How kind of useful of Prof. Paterson and yourself in proposing that Troeltsch sh[oul]d be now invited to lecture before the University! And how wise not to press the point! T[roeltsch] will certainly now come to Edinburgh –​to the New College very kind people –​and will, I am sure, go down beautifully. The future is in God’s hands!89 Troeltsch had heard from Mackintosh by 29 December 1922 and wrote to von Hügel that he would repeat his lecture on Gewissensmoral since the lecture proposed for Oxford was too specifically orientated towards Oxford.90 By the New Year, then, Troeltsch was promised a platform in London (both at the University and at the Society for the Study of Religion), Oxford and Edinburgh, and he began to make arrangements for travel which included borrowing a dinner suit.91 Webb also received a letter from Troeltsch on 1 January 1923 presumably outlining the content of the Oxford lecture, and by the middle of the month he had begun to read Die Absolutheit.92 Nevertheless, he declined to review Der Historismus und seine Problem which had been published shortly beforehand for the Times Literary Supplement.93 It is clear from Webb’s diary that there had also evidently been talk of offering Troeltsch an honorary degree but as things stood it was agreed not to proceed any further. Thus on 27 January 1923 Webb remarked in his diary that ‘E. M.  Walker94 wrote saying he quite agreed that we had better not move for a degree for Troeltsch and would write to Barker to tell him so’.95 On 1 February 1923 Webb received a letter from Barker about a dinner in London for Troeltsch and another from Witworth of Worcester College ‘who wishes Tr[oeltsch] to read a paper to the German club here’.96

136

136  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923

Troeltsch’s death However, all these domestic arrangements were shattered the following day when Webb reported some tragic news. He was shocked to see in [the] ‘Times’ the death of Tr[oeltsch] announced. Von H[ügel] had told me in a letter received on Wednesday that he had been very ill, but had now been pronounced out of danger. Now are all our plans made void! Asked to write obit[uary] for ‘The Guardian’ for Monday. Replied that I  c[oul]dn’t write it  –​suggest they write to Barker.97 On 3 February 1923 Barker’s formal invitation to Webb to be his guest at a dinner in honour of Troeltsch on 15 March arrived. All Webb could write in his diary in response to this was ‘Alas!’. Webb wrote to von Hügel on 3 February 1923 about Troeltsch, presumably suggesting that the lecture be read out to honour the late master.98 Von Hügel replied on 6 February 1923 remarking that ‘Troeltsch’s death is the biggest blow I have had since my dear eldest daughter died … and there is nothing like it in my life before except the death of my sister’. He went on to confirm that he would supply a copy of the lecture in English.99 The Church newspaper of record, The Guardian carried a brief report on 16 February:  ‘The sudden death of Professor Troeltsch, who was expected to lecture this term at the invitation of Prof. C. C. J. Webb, came as a shock’.100 The depth of economic despair for those on fixed salaries in Germany, which played a major role in Troeltsch’s death, was emphasized by the pleas of German Professors to the generosity of English students. The following letter, prompted by Troeltsch, but quite unconnected with the lecture, appeared in the Oxford Magazine on 8 February 1923,101 and provides an interesting commentary on the events surrounding Troeltsch’s death: German Students Sir, We desire to bring to the notice of the British public the dire need of the student class in Germany at this time. Professor Ernst Troeltsch, supported by Professors Deissmann, von Dobschütz and Eucken, has written a moving appeal in which he says:  ‘In our student circles harder conditions are present than have ever been till now the case’. This is due, of course, to the Mark, and if those words could be used before recent events in the Ruhr Valley they must now have a greater foundation still. It is upon students, and perhaps their teachers, that the burden presses with the greatest weight. Many of them are quite literally starving. No calamity could be greater than the virtual elimination of the intellectual classes of a great nation; it would mean the end of

137

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 137 leadership, of culture, of technical skill. Doctors and engineers must be trained if their services are to be available. And among the students for whom we plead, we who speak as Christians remember especially those who are training to become ministers of the Gospel. Prof. Troeltsch ends his appeal with the words: ‘The essential unity of the Christian peoples, and our common interest in learning, makes me venture to send this request, although one does not delight to take upon oneself the part of pleader. But poverty and love break iron’. And a very little will do so much. The Cause which creates the problem –​the fall of the value of the Mark –​also increases the efficiency of our efforts to relieve it. One pound will provide a daily meal for a starving student in Germany for three months. We hope that very many students will be kept in health and strength through these days of appalling hardship by the generous response of those who read this appeal. Contributions may be sent to Miss Iredale,102 Organising Secretary of the Universities Committee of the Imperial War Relief Fund,103 General Buildings, Aldwych, London, WC2. Yours faithfully, W. Manchester104 W. R. Inge105 David S. Cairns W. B. Selbie106 This letter was also reported (but not in full) in The Guardian107 where it appeared alongside Troeltsch’s obituary notice by Ernest Barker. Troeltsch’s death thus seemed a tragic reminder of the privations which had been brought about by reparations and the failure to secure an equitable peace. Miss Eleanora Iredale of the Universities’ Committee drew out the connection in a letter to The Guardian on 23 February 1923:108 … It was Dr Ernst Troeltsch who first drew the attention of a representative of my committee in Berlin to the vital importance of finding a way to save from their desperate plight some thousands of students in the German Universities who are being driven through hunger, physical weakness, and moral suffering, to despair and lack of faith and courage in the future. It was Prof. Troeltsch’s letter which inspired the appeal on behalf of the students of Germany sent to you by the Bishop of Manchester and his co-​signatories. I will be grateful if you will give us this final opportunity of asking your readers, if, in memory of the life and work of a great Christian such as the world has lost in Prof. Troeltsch, they will not send us some small gifts to make possible the work of relieving German students for which he did so earnestly appeal some two or three weeks before his death. A very little will do so much. £1 will give a daily meal, fresh hope,

138

138  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 courage and faith to a starving man or woman student in a German University for three months … The tone of this letter exemplifies the degree of reconciliation which had occurred between German and English academia, which was borne up by a debate in the Oxford Union Debating Society on 1 March 1923 where the motion ‘that the time has come when the enmities engendered in the war period should give way to a friendly attitude to all peoples who fought under the Central Powers’ was carried by 177 votes to 73.109 On 6 March 1923 Webb was forwarded a copy of the address in the Berliner Tagesblatt that Harnack had given at Troeltsch’s funeral by Selbie who ‘had heard that there is no doubt his death was due to privation, wh[ich] had weakened him so that the embolism wh[ich] was the immediate cause of death was fatal to him’.110 In response Webb proposed to the Board of the Theology Faculty that ‘we should condole with Berlin University on Troeltsch’s death’.111

The Oxford lecture Throughout February 1923, Webb made arrangements to have Troeltsch’s lecture read out posthumously. He used his notice of Troeltsch’s death in the Oxford Magazine112 to announce the time and venue. This notice also reveals something about the sensitive issues which made the lectures so difficult to arrange. Firstly, Webb points to Troeltsch’s lack of sympathy with the warlike policy of his nation by declining to sign the notorious manifesto of the ninety-​three professors; thereby exposing himself to accusation by some of his colleagues of being a traitor to his country. This, however, was a wholly undeserved charge; and the present Government of Germany showed that they did not regard him in this light by appointing him to an Under-​Secretaryship of State concerned with matters of education. Webb then goes on to discuss the forthcoming lecture: Before the very sudden illness to which he succumbed, he had accepted invitations to lecture at King’s College, London, and here at Oxford during March; and when he had been, about three weeks ago, declared by his doctors to be out of immediate danger,113 after a serious heart attack which preceded that which was to prove fatal, he wrote to a friend in this country that he hoped to fulfil all his engagements and was ‘longing for England’. But it was not to be. It will be welcome news to those who hoped to hear him, that his intimate friend, Baron von Hügel, who was to have been his host in London, has consented to read

139

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 139 (in English) the lecture which Prof. Troeltsch was to have delivered at the same time and place as were originally fixed for its delivery –​Friday, March 9th, at 5.30 in the Schools.114 The subject will be that discussed in his book, Die Absolutheit des Christenthums. Webb prepared himself thoroughly for the lecture and ensured there was a stock of Die Absolutheit in Blackwell’s, the Oxford bookseller, selling them seven copies on 16 February 1923. On 21 February 1923 von Hügel wrote to Webb regretting that he would be unable to read the lecture but that he would send a translation at least three days beforehand: I find that death and all it has involved for me has been a very big thing even merely physically. The arterial pressure has been worse and now asthma has come to drive me out of bed into an armchair at night. I  have now the strongest instinct that if only I  can drop any bigger undertakings out of this house for a while, I  shall get very fairly fit again, but that otherwise I shall have a most grave breakdown.115 This news obviously came as ‘a great disappointment’ to Webb.116 He consequently made arrangements to read the lecture himself and received a copy on 7 March 1923 in an English translation ‘by a lady employed by von Hügel and corrected by him’. The Oxford Magazine,117 however, published the day before the lecture, was still expecting von Hügel to ‘lecture for’ the Oriel Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion. In the event Webb read the lecture and wrote down his initial impressions in his diary on Friday 9 March 1923: … read Tr[oeltsch]’s lecture in English to an audience of about 50 in the Schools who included Macan,118 Lock, Carpenter, Selbie, Nolloth,119 and Benecke.120 I prefixed some remarks of my own and appended some comments of von H[ügel] wh[ich] he had sent me this morning. The lecture recapitulated the argument of Die Absolutheit des Christenthums and then explained where he had changed his mind –​which was in having ceased to regard Christianity as able to absorb the other great historical religions. He had come to hold that (as he told von H[ügel] before the war) truth is not as, in the ‘old thought’ [such as?] really maintained by the ‘old church’, monomorphous but polymorphous. Von H[ügel] in his comments dwelt on the sceptical tendency of his view –​not only in respect of religion: and thought Farquhar in the Crown of Hinduism was far enough. Walked home with E[leanor]121 who had been at the lecture …122 The report Webb wrote for the Oxford Magazine is almost identical in substance:

140

140  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 [The lecture] was of the highest interest and those who heard it will look forward to studying it in print. After summarizing the conclusion of his book Die Absolutheit des Christenthums, it indicated in what respects the author would have been disposed after an interval of twenty one years to modify them. It appeared that he was less willing to consider the absolute validity of any one of the great historical religions compatible with the full individuality which he had come more and more to recognise in them all … At the end of the lecture Prof. Webb read some interesting comments upon it by Baron von Hügel, who gave some account of his late friend’s development of the new views outlined in it, and expressed his own inability to accept them, and his preference, so far as concerns the relation of Christianity to the other religions of the world, for that suggested by Dr. Farquhar in Crown of Hinduism.123 Von Hügel’s role and influence in the lecture, even in suggesting the Farquhar volume, was thus quite extensive. On 13 March 1923 Webb wrote to Frau Troeltsch commenting on the success of the lecture. She replied on 22 March 1923, and on the same day Webb sent a cheque for £7 on the lecturer’s account to Frau Troeltsch’s bankers, Axoms (?) of Berlin. It is perhaps interesting to note that Adolf Deissmann was in Great Britain at the same time and had lectured (in English) twice at Westminster College, Cambridge on ‘Inscriptions and the New Testament’.124 He was the first German theologian in Cambridge since 1914, even though Westminster College, a Presbyterian foundation, was not formally a part of the University. Deissmann had also visited the Archbishop of Canterbury on 18 March 1923. Davidson reported that he was very unhopeful about the future in Germany owing to financial stress. … He is delivering some lectures in England, but is apparently engaged almost entirely in Nonconformist circles, and, except for his talk with me, has little or no intercourse with Church of England folk.125 It is perhaps likely that in Oxford and King’s College, London (an Anglican foundation) Troeltsch would have had a stronger dose of Anglicanism than Deissmann, although it is extremely improbable that he would have been received by Davidson.

The London lectures Von Hügel’s chief broker behind the London lectures was Sir Ernest Barker, Principal of King’s College. It was at his instigation that the Registrar of London University had initially written to Troeltsch asking him to give three lectures.126 Barker had a very positive opinion of Troeltsch ‘whose massive work on the Social Doctrines of the Christian Churches’ he ‘had long admired’, and he saw to it that a translation of Troeltsch’s lecture on

141

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 141 ‘The Ideas of Natural Law and Humanity in World Politics’ was published as an appendix in Otto Gierke’s, Natural Law and the Theory of Society.127 At Webb’s suggestion Barker supplied the obituary of Troeltsch for The Guardian.128 After a long description of Troeltsch’s life and a detailed discussion of the Soziallehren Barker gave his own opinion on Troeltsch’s political thought which, he claimed, was ‘a Christian theory of society, based upon Christian principle in all its wide reach. And here Troeltsch is a forerunner and a prophet’. In his autobiography Barker outlines the circumstances of the London lectures: I looked forward to his lectures with a lively anticipation; but unfortunately he died just before he was due to deliver them. His widow, however, sent us his typescript:  and Baron von Hügel joined with Professor Atkins, the head of the Department of German (I too gave a little help) in translating them into English. I delivered them in our English version, afterwards published as a little book, in the Chapel of the College; and we were able to send the fee for the lectures to his widow,  –​then, we were told, in some need  –​to help her in her distress. That is a happy memory  –​the more as it brought me into contact with Baron von Hügel, a great scholar and a great gentleman, and the more, too, as it taught me that theological scholarship stands above confessions and nations, for here was a Roman Catholic, and along with him two Anglicans, serving the memory and preserving the ideas of a German Protestant.129 The lectures were given on 25 April 1923 and 2 and 3 May 1923 at 5.30 pm and were delivered in English.130 Baron von Hügel took the Chair at the first lecture and ‘gave a short account of Troeltsch’s work and influence, which was full of personal touches’.131 The minutes of the Board of Studies in Theology reveal that Frau Troeltsch was paid £60 and that the Chairman of the Board wrote to von Hügel and Barker for their help on 7 May 1923.132 Von Hügel himself delivered the lecture to the London Society for the Study of Religion but, according to Bedoyère, ‘broke down half way through and had to leave the room, though he managed to return for a minute at the end to say a few words’.133

The publication of the lectures The next task was to see through the publication of the lectures, and to this end Webb asked for the German of the lectures from von Hügel who, after initially sending one of the London lectures, sent it on 16 March 1923. The following day Webb spent in comparing the translation and the original and then sent it on to Macan who was a keen Germanophile. Barker had written to Webb on 16 March 1923 about the possibility of publication.

142

142  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 Webb replied on 17 March 1923 that he was also writing to von Hügel and R. W. Chapman of the Oxford University Press. Three days later Webb interviewed Chapman about printing the Oxford lecture in English and German and reported back to Barker.134 By 1 April 1923 the situation about publication had become clearer. Webb wrote to von Hügel explaining where things stood: Easter Day.                 Walnut Tree House,                          Marston,                             Nr Oxford. My Dear von Hügel I have just read with such great interest your letter on Troeltsch in the Literary Supplement. I hope that its appearance means that you are yourself better than when I last heard from you –​are getting more satisfactory and feeling less unfit for work. I am not sure whether I told you –​I told Barker –​exactly how matters now stand about the publication of the Oxford lecture. I  have asked the Oxford Delegates of the Press to publish it separately in German and English, on the understanding that it will subsequently be included in a single volume with the other English lectures to be published by the University of London. They will make no difficulty agreeing to this condition if they publish it –​but this is the present state of things while publication is so expensive, they may not see their way to do; and its easy republication might make them less dispensed to spend money on bringing it out than they otherwise might be. The matter however cannot be settled until their first meeting next term. So that there remains nothing to be done at present. But there is no hurry, as I take it that no steps can be taken about the London volume until Barker has read the lectures at King’s College. Macan, the Master of University College –​or rather the late Master, for he has ceased to be Master this very day, who is a great admirer of Troeltsch and has just been studying the German of the lecture, which he heard me read in English  –​writes in returning the German to me that in his opinion ‘T[roeltsch]’s second thoughts do not go much beyond Nathan in Lessing’s Nathan der Weise; and that the perception that the religious (and ecclesiastical) idea and institution is (of course!) conditioned by the whole given culture of the time and place, or race, leaves out of account the immensely different ‘values’ of different ‘cultures’ –​at least of the perception he used to discredit the ‘Absolutheit des Christenthums’. But lately it is its relativity (adaptability) that really gives Christianity its Absolutheit (= allgemeine Gültigkeit!)’. I think this judgment would coincide pretty well with your own. I wonder whether you would be able to spare me your copy –​if you have one –​of the separately produced lecture which you mention

143

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 143 in your ‘Times’ letter, on ‘The Significance for Faith in the Historical Credibility of Jesus’?135 I should very much like to read it. With my wife’s kindest remembrances from yours as ever Clement C.J. Webb136 Oxford University Press eventually decided that the circumstances were too difficult to produce a separate run of the Oxford lecture and on 8 May 1923 wrote to Webb declining his proposals. At the same time von Hügel pressed Barker to ensure the swift publication of the London lectures which were ready for the printers by the beginning of June. Webb and his wife read through and returned one set of proofs on 8 June 1923, and another on 12 June 1923.137 Von Hügel’s introduction took him the rest of the month to complete and he aimed to finish work before he began his summer holiday on 31 July 1923.138 He wrote to Kemp Smith, who had recently returned from the USA, informing of Troeltsch’s death.139 Kemp Smith wrote back on 28 May to say that he was ‘deeply grieved to hear of Troeltsch’s death; and greatly enjoyed your notice of him in the Times. Very many thanks for kindly sending it to me’. Von Hügel later asked for Kemp Smith’s assistance in the correction of the proofs: I have still to revise (on top of Principal Barker) the last London University Lecture in galley proof but also a little in page revise; and I  have to compile the Index  –​I  think even for so small a volume, an Index of Persons and an Index of Things.–​ But this morning I at last sent off the (typed) Introduction for an early return in galleys-​proof. Mr Murrell (Manager of London University Press) is, apparently, going to allow me appreciably more than 3,000 words –​I have just over 4,000 in the ms so far. Now I chiefly write to find out whether, I should think by Monday or Tuesday next, you will be a little less rushed, and could possibly do the kindness of reading the thing thus when it still can be greatly altered. It has cost me much (also interior, emotional) trouble, and I feel that the points are all important and substantially right. There may, however, be inconsistencies or slips in taste etc which I  have overlooked, and those points themselves may be over-​iterated or otherwise ineffective. If you read it you will find a bit about the English Hegelians,140 which Webb wanted put in and similarly Barker. But perhaps (?) there ought to be a word to show that I am with Troeltsch in my conviction that Hegelianism has strangely little to give to religion and takes from it its very roots. (Am saying something of this in my new Preface to ‘M.E’.141 2nd. ed.). Frau Troeltsch is annoyed at the translation into German (in the ‘Christliche Welt’) of my T.L.S.  letter on her late husband  –​dislikes

144

144  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 the intimate bits appearing thus for Germans to read. I  have written her that no one asked for permission to translate, and, had they done so, I should have required them to cut out those parts which I still feel not excessive for over here, where I hoped to soften readers out of their militant anti-​Germanisms. I mention this as a further reason why I want to be circumspect (but not timid –​ that will ruin any piece of writing!) in the Introduction as regards its human bits … P.S. Only Principal Barker w[oul]d, besides yourself see that proof.142 Kemp Smith returned the proofs with some witty corrections on 21 July 1923 thanking von Hügel in particular for the generous reference in the preface and expressing his hope that von Hügel might be able to return to his own writing: ‘I grudge this Troeltsch interruption, tho’ only for that reason –​as you must yourself’.143 More minor corrections were made on 25 August 1923.144 Kemp Smith eventually received a published copy in December and replied to von Hügel on 31 December 1923: Troeltsch’s ‘Christian Thought’ I  have now read very carefully twice, & with greatest profit. The lectures are very worthy of him and make a very massive impression. Your own Introduction seems to me, if I may say so, of the happiest, both as appreciation and criticism. The root of what is unsatisfactory in Troeltsch’s way of thinking, so far as I  can see, ultimately lies in the very strange dualisms that run through all his discussions. I remember your saying the word ‘merely’ ought never to be used. Troeltsch is constantly talking of the merely natural, the merely individual, the merely formal, the merely rational even. Yet when he closes with his problems, all sorts of qualifications that really render his dualisms and his ‘merelys’ quite meaningless are brought in by the back door. He carries his dualisms so far as to speak e.g. on p.164, as if rationalism and idealism (surely as ‘isms’ quite incompatible and incapable of being both true) met on a parity & and had to ‘compromise’ with one another … In consequence, like Dean Inge, he is in a position to run with the hare & to hunt with the hounds … The little volume has benefitted me greatly and left me with an increased respect for what was already great –​Troeltsch and his work …145 The volume was published by the London University Press towards the end of 1923 and priced at five shillings. Despite its name, this Press was a private company set up in 1910 to publish all university material. The only formal link with the University was its right to appoint three directors to the Board. In 1923 it was under the direction of W. S. Murell with whom von Hügel and Barker corresponded.146 By 13 February 1924 it had become clear that the volume was not selling well. Von Hügel wrote to Kemp Smith telling him that a mere two hundred copies had been sold outside the United States where

145

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 145 there were hopes that a further five hundred would be sold.147 The publisher had warned von Hügel that he might have to remainder the volume. Since von Hügel did not have sufficient money to buy up any more copies he wrote to Webb and Barker to ask for their assistance. Webb responded immediately, writing to Estlin Carpenter and quickly finishing his review for the Hibbert Journal.148 On 24 February 1924 von Hügel informed Kemp Smith149 of a letter he had had from Barker who wrote that he was ‘indignant with Murrell’ and ‘that he has just written Murrell a piece of this his indignant mind’ criticizing him for his lack of interest in advertising and promotion of the book. Kemp Smith replied on 2 March 1924 agreeing that, even though he had himself been busy promoting the book in Edinburgh, Barker was ‘surely right’.150

The reception of the book What is quite remarkable is that Christian Thought, perhaps because of the lack of publicity and relative obscurity of the publisher, received few critical notices in the United Kingdom. The new journal Theology failed even to announce the book, and the Journal of Theological Studies, the Oxford-​based journal, did not review it. Webb’s lengthy review in The Hibbert Journal,151 however, ranks as the most comprehensive and most positive it received in a British journal. In contrast, the reviewer in The Modern Churchman,152 the Modernist Journal, W. D. Morrison, Rector of St Marylebone’s Church in London, did not seem to understand the book even though he recommended it as ‘a volume that should be in the hands of all serious students of religious thought’.153 The Church Quarterly Review154 carried a long and vague article on Christian Thought by Kenneth Throne Henderson, Chaplain of Ripon Hall, the Modernist Theological College in Oxford, which was also intended to deal with Die Soziallehren, Der Historismus und seine Probleme as well as von Hügel’s Essays and Addresses,155 but which dealt with none of them adequately, least of all the German language works. The most influential Journal of the period, at least among the clergy, the Church newspaper, The Guardian, carried an extremely damning account of the book under the title ‘The Last Word in Individualism’.156 The unnamed reviewer remarked that the ‘complete sincerity and … richness of its historical content’ was in stark ‘contrast to the poverty of his positive conclusions’. This was hardly likely to endear the book to a large audience. Similarly, in the Expository Times, the leading Scottish Journal, Christian Thought was given a brief notice, again by an anonymous writer which similarly was far from positive:  ‘it may be questioned whether, on his principles, even in “the beyond” there can ever be anything that is not relative’.157 This is particularly disappointing, since, only a month before,158 H. R. Mackintosh had reviewed Der Historismus und seine Probleme most favourably under the title ‘Recent Foreign Theology:  Troeltsch’s Last Book’, which was its

146

146  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 only significant review in a British journal.159 Mackintosh perspicuously noted that it is no academic debate that Troeltsch conducts. The supreme reason for studying history, he holds firmly, is that we may guide and better the future. … History, if it is to rise above the level of cultural showmanship, must be rooted and grounded in the trust that the Eternal reigns and will prevail. It is a tribute to the profound religion of the dead thinker that in the tragic plight of his country he could still formulate and defend this immemorial creed. Since Christian Thought, as the sequel to Der Historismus und seine Probleme, carries on with this task, it is an all-​too sad reflection of the lack of interest in the destiny of Christian Europe that the book, which bore a title thought up by the Anglican, Barker,160 failed to attract much of an audience in Britain. Its faith in a future in which the religious personality might flourish became a vain hope in the changed circumstances of the 1920s. Yet there is much that still speaks in the book and it is tragic that it has been for so long out of print.161 The double message of realism and idealism which abide in the ethics of compromise is a welcome rejoinder to the incipient re-​emergence of nationalism. The thrust of Troeltsch’s message that ‘in history itself there are only relative victories’162 guards against any vain attempt to absolutize the given: ‘A radical and absolute solution does not exist; there are only working, partial, synthetically uniting solutions’. This may not be a welcome lesson, but it is needed in any time of insecurity which clamours after false absolutes –​and ours is a time of insecurity.163 At the end of his introduction von Hügel expressed his hope that Christian Thought might be the basis of a debate:  ‘May the students of this little book, in their way, converse, ruminate, remonstrate with him; may they go thus regretfully against him or joyfully with him as one still alive, and still abundantly enlivening, in our present midst’.164 Such a conversation with Troeltsch is still important in a world which continually threatens to tear itself to pieces.

Notes 1 Ernst Troeltsch, Christian Thought. Its History and Application (London: University of London Press, 1923). The German edition was published as Der Historismus und seine Überwindung (Berlin:  Pan Verlag Rolf Heise, 1924) and republished in Gangolf Hübinger in collaboration with Andreas Terwey, Fünf Vorträge zu Religion und Geschichtsphilosophie für England und Schottland [Five Lectures on Religion and Philosophy of History for England and Scotland: Christian Thought. Its History and Application] (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), Ernst Troeltsch Kritische Gesamtausgabe vol. 17. The introduction to the volume by the editors contains a useful survey of Troeltsch’s perception of England as well as of the circumstances of the lectures from the German perspective. 2 See above, Chapter 6.

147

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 147 3 On the state of English theology in the early 1920s see esp. Keith W. Clements, Lovers of Discord:  Twentieth-​Century Theological Controversies in England (London:  SPCK, 1988), 93–​105; and Alan M.  G. Stephenson. The Rise and Decline of English Modernism (London: SPCK, 1984), 99–​149. 4 Hans-​Georg Drescher deals with the lectures in a mere six pages in his Ernst Troeltsch. Leben und Werk (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1991), 521–​ 7, esp.  526. English translation:  Ernst Troeltsch. His Life and Work, tr. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1992), 312–​17, esp. 315. 5 Troeltsch, Christian Thought, 158. 6 Clement Charles Julian Webb (1865–​1954). Son of Benjamin Webb, the founder of the Cambridge ritualist club, the Camden Society, but himself a broad churchman. Educated at Westminster, he became tutor and later Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. In 1920 he was elected as first Oriel Professor of Philosophy of Religion and became a Fellow of Oriel College in 1922. Webb’s most important book was Studies in the History of Natural Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1915). His extensive diary is in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. The following volumes have been consulted: MS Eng.misc. e.1154 (1908); e.1164 (22 December 1980 to 31 March 1920); e.1165 (1 January 1920 to 22 January 1921); e.1166 (24 January 1921 to 14 November 1921); d.1113 (26 November 1921 to 18 October 1922); d.1114 (October 1922 to May 1923); d.1115 (May 1923 to March 1924). In a letter of 30 November 1908 to Friedrich von Hügel, Webb wrote: ‘I see, to turn to a less interesting subject –​that you call me a ‘High Churchman’. I  sh[oul]dn’t call myself so  –​tho’ I  was brought up as one, and am accustomed to some of their ways: for I have hardly ever, since I grew up, found myself in sympathy with the High Church party’ (Von Hügel papers in St Andrew’s University Library (SAUL) MS.3179. I am grateful to Robert N. Smart, Keeper of Manuscripts, for his assistance). 7 Clement C. J. Webb, Review of Ernst Troeltsch, Christian Thought, The Hibbert Journal 22 (1923–​24): 603–​8, here 603. 8 Webb, Review of Christian Thought, 603. 9 See the brief discussion in Hans Rollmann,  ‘Ernst Troeltsch, Friedrich von Hügel and the Student Christian Movement’, The Downside Review 101 (1983): 217–​26. 10 On this, see above Chapter  2 and Mark D. Chapman,  ‘A Theology for Europe: Universality and Particularity in Christian Theology’, Heythrop Journal 25:1 (1994): 125–​39. 11 See esp. Troeltsch, ‘Moralisten, englische’ in Realencyclopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, third edition (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1903), vol. 13, 436–​ 61; reprinted as ‘Die englische Moralisten des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts’ in Aufsätze zur Geistesgeschichte und Religionssoziologie (Gesammelte Schriften (GS), vol. iv) (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1925), 374–​429. I have looked in detail at Troeltsch’s use of British thought in Der Historismus und seine Probleme in ‘Der Historismus in England and England in Der Historismus’ in Friedrich Wilhelm Graf (ed.), Der Historismus und seine Probleme, Troeltsch-​ Studien, vol. 11 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 181–​99. 12 See esp. Troeltsch,  The Social Teaching [sic] of the Christian Churches, 2 vols (London: Allen and Unwin, 1931), ii, 661–​82; 706–​14. 13 Troeltsch, ‘Meine Bücher’ in GS IV, 3–​18, here 12; ‘My Books’ in Ernst Troeltsch, Religion and History (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 365–​78, here 373. 14 This episode is briefly described in Troeltsch, Die Sozialphilosophie des Christentums (Zürich: Sledwyla, 1922), 20; translated as ‘The Social Philosophy of Christianity’ in Troeltsch, Religion and History, 223. Troeltsch uses Davidson’s sermon, which was preached at the beginning of October 1904, as an illustration of the reaction of a national church to the latent ‘pharisaism’ of the sectarian

148

148  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 spirit of Puritanism and Calvinism. See G. K. A. Bell, Randall Davidson, third edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952), 450. 15 On Baron Friedrich von Hügel (1852–​1925) see esp. Michael de la Bedoyère, The Life of Baron von Hügel (London:  J.M. Dent, 1951). On the friendship between von Hügel and Troeltsch, see Hans Rollmann, ‘Troeltsch, von Hügel and Modernism’, The Downside Review 96 (1978): 35–​60. 16 Letter from Troeltsch to von Hügel, 23 September 1904 in Karl-​Ernst Apfelbacher and Peter Neuner (eds), Ernst Troeltsch. Briefe an Friedrich von Hügel, 1901–​ 1923 (Paderborn: Bonifacius-​Druckerei, 1974), 67. 17 ‘Ernst Troeltsch’, Times Literary Supplement 22 (1923), 216. 18 Cited in Lawrence F. Barmann, Baron Friedrich von Hügel and the Modernist Crisis in England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 167. 19 On the friendship between von Hügel and Webb, see esp. John D. Root, ‘The Correspondence of Friedrich von Hügel and Clement C. J. Webb’, The Downside Review 99 (1981):  288–​ 98. Webb contributed von Hügel’s obituary to the Dictionary of National Biography. 1922–​30 (London:  Oxford University Press, 1937), 874–​6. For Webb’s appreciation of von Hügel, see C. C. J. Webb, ‘Baron Friedrich von Hügel and His Contribution to Religious Philosophy’, The Harvard Theological Review 42 (1949): 1–​18. 20 The Synthetic Society was founded in London in 1896 by the future Prime Minister Arthur James Balfour, Wilfrid Ward, Edward Talbot, Charles Gore and James Ward. See William C. Lubenow, ‘Synthetic Society (act. 1896–​1909)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press) at: www. oxforddnb.com/​view/​theme/​96304 (accessed 6 Feb 2016). On the relationship of Catholic Modernism and the Synthetic Society, see John D. Root, ‘George Tyrrell and the Synthetic Society’, The Downside Review 98 (1980): 42–​59. 21 Webb had written a lengthy discussion paper, ‘The Notion of Revelation’ for the section on ‘Christian Revelation and the Similar Claims of Other Religions’ for the London Pan-​Anglican Congress of 1908, Volume 3, Section B, Christian Truth and Other Intellectual Forces (London: SPCK, 1908). The pamphlets are bound in with the volume as an appendix. Webb’s is numbered SB 5 and is 16 densely packed pages. Von Hügel arranged for this paper to be published in Italy and also to be sent to the French Modernist, Alfred Loisy. 22 Letter from von Hügel to Webb of 9 March 1908 cited in Friedrich von Hügel, Selected Letters, ed. Bernard Holland (London: J. M. Dent, 1927), 145. See also Troeltsch, Briefe, 92. 23 See Jerom Murch, Memoir of Robert Hibbert, esquire, founder of the Hibbert Trust (Bath:  W. Lewis for private circulation, 1874). An updated version was published in 1933 for private circulation in The Book of the Hibbert Trust with an updated history of the Trust by W. H. Drummond. 24 See also Troeltsch’s letter of 4 April 1908 to von Hügel in Troeltsch, Briefe, 87–​ 9. Von Hügel also mediated Troeltsch’s works to various Catholic Modernists including Tyrrell (see Barmann, The Modernist Crisis, 167). 25 Webb to von Hügel, 30 November 1908, von Hügel Papers, SAUL, MS.3179. Webb’s views of Loisy are discussed by John D. Root, ‘Correspondence’, 291. 26 Webb, Diary, 3 December 1908. 27 Webb to von Hügel, 6 December 1908, SAUL MS. 3178; also cited in Rollmann, ‘Troeltsch, von Hügel and the Student Christian Movement’, 223. Troeltsch wrote of the limited quality of his spoken English to von Hügel on 13 August 1921 in Troeltsch, Briefe, 110. 28 Webb, Diary, 13 December 1908. 29 Webb, Diary, 14 December 1908. 30 Von Hügel’s letter is cited in:  Bedoyère, Baron von Hügel, 214. Webb later defended the Baron’s complete integrity in a review of M. Nédoncelle,  Baron Friedrich von Hügel, Journal of Theological Studies 38 (1937): 320.

149

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 149 31 Webb, Diary, 18 December 1908. 32 Samuel Rolles Driver (1846–​1914) was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, 1883–​1914. 33 That is ‘in the street’ (Webb, Diary, 15 December 1908). 34 See Von Hügel, Diary, 9 Jan 1909, cited in Root, ‘The Correspondence of Friedrich von Hügel and Clement C.  J. Webb’, 298. Revell’s Chair was at the Collège de France. 35 Robert Henry Charles (1855–​1931), was an Irish scholar who worked on critical editions of apocalypses and Byzantine history. He was Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford from 1891, Professor at Trinity College, Dublin, 1898–​1906, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford from 1910 and a Canon of Westminster from 1913. 36 Crossed through. 37 Webb to von Hügel, 20 December 1908, von Hügel Papers SAUL MS.3179. 38 See above, Chapter  5 and Mark Chapman, Bishops, Saints and Politics (London:  T & T Clark, 2007), ch 8.  Hospitality extended to the children of German academics. The sons of the philosopher Rudolf Eucken and the theologian Otto Pfleiderer were studying chemistry in Oxford. Webb recorded their sense of humour in his diary on 28 March 1909. Pfleiderer’s son ‘was explaining that his father, after lecturing on Sunday in Scotland, could get nothing to eat, all restaurants being shut: and [Henry Thomas] Tizard [a chemist at Magdalen College and afterwards Rector of Imperial College, London] saying that this was so in England and Scotland, another German who prides himself on his English said “Yes all you English are apricots” (i.e. hypocrites)’. 39 Cf. Webb, Diary, 16 May 1920. Von Hügel addressed ‘an immense crowd’ at Campion Hall (the Jesuit College in Oxford) on ‘Christianity and the Supernatural’. 40 See Webb to von Hügel, 23 June 1921, Von Hügel Papers, SAUL, MS. 3215. Von Hügel was involved in the election of the Wilde Reader in Mental Philosophy although he too ill to participate. Partly because of von Hügel’s illness Webb’s least favoured choice was elected. 41 Webb to von Hügel, 13 February 1921, Von Hügel Papers, SAUL MS. 3213. When Troeltsch’s lecture invitation eventually materialized it followed the same procedure:  he was not asked to lecture by the Faculty Board but merely by a Professor of the Faculty, with the Faculty Board’s approval. This meant the invitation came only on a semi-​official basis. 42 Webb to von Hügel 17 September 1921, Von Hügel Papers, SAUL MS. 3216. 43 The correspondence between von Hügel and Kemp Smith has been published in Lawrence F. Barmann (ed.), The Letters of Baron Friedrich von Hügel and Professor Norman Kemp Smith (New York: Fordham University Press, 1981). After reading a copy of Die Soziallehren presented by the Baron, Kemp Smith responded: ‘Troeltsch I find extraordinarily congenial, & that in many different ways; & I rejoice to know that in so doing I shall be travelling on the same road with you’ (Kemp Smith to von Hügel, 21 March 1920 in Barmann (ed.), Letters, 75). Von Hügel also mediated Kemp Smith’s works to Troeltsch. See Troeltsch’s thanks of 31 January 1920 for Kemp Smith’s 1919 inaugural lecture, The Present Situation in Philosophy (Edinburgh:  J.  Thin, 1919)  in Troeltsch, Briefe, 106. 44 Von Hügel to Kemp Smith, 3–​5 September 1921 in Barmann (ed.), Letters, 139. 45 Kemp Smith to von Hügel, 9 September 1921 in Barmann (ed.), Letters, 141. 46 The movement split in 1928 with the founding of the conservative Inter-​Varsity Fellowship. See Tissington Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland (London: SCM Press, 1933). 47 David Cairns, An Autobiography. Some Recollections of a Long Life. And Selected Letters, edited by his son and daughter (London:  SCM, 1950), 220. The correspondence which eventually led to the withdrawal of the invitation

150

150  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 is documented in Rollmann, ‘Troeltsch, von Hügel and the Student Christian Movement’. 48 Letters from Baron Friedrich von Hügel to a Niece (London:  J.M. Dent, 1929), 175–​7. 49 The Irishman and Anglican priest, Tissington Tatlow (1876–​1957) was General Secretary of the Student Christian Movement from 1903 to 1929. 50 Von Hügel to Kemp Smith, 31 December 1921–​3 January 1922 in Barmann (ed.), Letters, 163. 51 See Troeltsch to von Hügel (no date), probably end August 1921 in Troeltsch: Briefe, 116. Troeltsch remarked that the proposed payment was sufficient to meet the costs of the journey. 52 Webb to von Hügel, 31 December 1921, Von Hügel Papers, SAUL MS. 3219, from Hotel Splendid, Portofino. 53 Sir Ernest Barker was a Political theorist. He was Fellow of several Oxford Colleges before becoming Principal of King’s College, London University, 1920–​ 28, From 1928 to 1939 he was Professor of Political Science at Cambridge University and Fellow of Peterhouse. 54 Sir Ernest Barker, Age and Youth. Memories of Three Universities and Father of the Man (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), 136. Webb reports in his diary that there was a debate on relativity in the Examination Schools in Oxford on 24 September 1920. 55 Webb, Diary, 17 February 1922. 56 ‘La signification de la conception eschatologique de la vie de Jésus et des croyances du christianisme primitif pour la religiosité moderne.’ 57 Webb, Diary, 3 March 1922. 58 Von Hügel to Kemp Smith, 3 June 1922 in Barmann (ed.), Letters, 170–​71. 59 The SCM had refused to allow Troeltsch to speak because of theological objections. Cf. Rollmann, ‘Troeltsch, von Hügel and the Student Christian Movement’. 60 Von Hügel to Kemp Smith, 3 June 1922, in Barmann (ed.), 170–​71. 61 Troeltsch to von Hügel on 15 June 1922, Briefe, 122‒30. 62 Troeltsch to von Hügel on 15 June 1922, Briefe, 124. 63 In the Baron’s official English translation which was used by Michael de la Bedoyère in his short extract from this letter (Baron von Hügel, 344) the word ‘Alldeutschen’ is rendered by the meaningless ‘Old German’. 64 Briefe, 128–​9. Troeltsch’s view of over-​population was expressed in a lecture given at Heidelberg in the Winter-​Semester of 1911‒12:  ‘Our contemporary problems are not deeper or more profound, but are simply different. Where once only twelve million lived, now over sixty million people want to live. All problems have to depart from this fact, not of progress, but of the increase of the masses which complicates all questions of existence and along with this, of the ethos’ (‘Praktische christliche Ethik’, Kollegmitschrift von Gertrud von le Fort, edited by Eleonore von la Chevallerie, typescript, 16). A copy of this is deposited in the Ernst-​Troeltsch-​Archiv in Munich. 65 Briefe, 130. 66 William Paterson Paterson (1860–​1939) studied in Leipzig, Erlangen and Berlin becoming Prof. of Systematic Theology, Aberdeen in 1894. He was Professor of Divinity at Edinburgh University from 1903 to 1934 and Dean of the Faculty from 1912 to 1928. In 1919 he served as Moderator of the Church of Scotland. 67 W. A. Curtis (1876–​1961) studied in Heidelberg and Leipzig and was Professor of Biblical Exegesis at Edinburgh University from 1915 to 1946, Dean of the Faculty from 1928 to 1946 and Principal of New College from 1935 to 1946. 68 Hugh Ross Mackintosh (1870–​1936) had studied in Freiburg, Halle, and Marburg, and was from 1904 to 1939 Professor of Systematic Theology

151

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 151 at New College, Edinburgh, the United Free Church of Scotland College. After Church Union in 1929 this became the Chair of Christian Dogmatics. Mackintosh was Ritschl’s translator and is said to have kept a picture of Herrmann in his study. His understanding of Troeltsch from a Barthian perspective (which he adopted in 1931) was given in: Types of Modern Theology (London: Nisbet, 1937), ch. 6. 69 Alexander Martin (1857–​ 1946) was Professor of Apologetics and Practical Theology from 1897 to 1927 at New College and Principal from 1918 to 1935. He was the first Moderator of the Church of Scotland after the Union in 1929. 70 Kemp Smith to von Hügel, 29 June 1922, in Barmann (ed.), Letters, 173–​4. 71 On this see esp. Lawrence F. Barmann, ‘The Origins and Early History of the London Society for the Study of Religion (1904–​1918) as an expression of Modernism’ in Francis S. Fiorenza and James C. Livingston (eds), Culture, Protestantism and Catholic Modernism (Berkeley:  American Academy of Religion Nineteenth Century Theology Working Group, 1977), 112–​40. 72 This is a reference to Cambridge and Francis Crawford Burkitt (1864–​1935), Norrisian Professor of Divinity from 1905. 73 Von Hügel to Webb, 28 September 1922, Von Hügel, Selected Letters, 360, Also in Bedoyère, Baron von Hügel, 345. 74 The atmosphere was still highly charged. Webb reports in his diary that a College Fellowship was denied to a conscientious objector who had refused to fight in the War on 7 October 1922. 75 Lawrence Pearsall Jacks (1860–​1955) was Professor of Philosophy at Manchester College, Oxford, 1903–​31 and Principal, 1915–​31. He was also editor of the Hibbert Journal, the leading liberal periodical from 1902 to 1947, and therefore an influential figure in English theology. See esp. L. P. Jacks, The Confessions of an Octogenarian (London: Allen and Unwin, 1941). 76 Cuthbert Hamilton Turner (1860–​1930) was a Patristic and New Testament Scholar, who was a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford from 1889. He became Dean Ireland’s Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture in 1920. 77 Arthur Cayley Headlam (1862–​1947) was a Fellow of All Souls from 1885, Principal of King’s College, London from 1903 to 1918 and Editor of the influential Anglican journal, the Church Quarterly Review from 1901 to 1921. He was Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford and Canon of Christ Church Cathedral from 1918 to 1922 and Bishop of Gloucester from 1923 to 1945. He was one of the leading ecumenists of his generation. See esp. Ronald Jasper, Arthur Cayley Headlam (London, Faith Press, 1960). 78 Von Hügel to Kemp Smith, 24 October 1922, Barmann (ed.), Letters, 181. 79 Die Absolutheit des Christentums und die Religionsgeschichte (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1902, second edition, 1912). English translation by David Reid, The Absoluteness of Christianity and the History of Religions (London: SCM, 1972). 80 Walter Lock (1846–​1933) was Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, 1869–​92, Dean Ireland’s Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture, 1895–​1919 and Warden of Keble College, 1897–​1920. He succeeded William Sanday as Lady Margaret Professor and Canon of Christ Church from 1919 to 1927. 81 Charles Fox Burney (1868–​1925), Hebraist and Old Testament Scholar, was a Fellow of St John’s from 1899 to 1914 and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture from 1914 to 1925. 82 The Vice Chancellor in 1923 was Lewis Richard Farnell (1856–​1934), Rector of Exeter College. He was a prominent Classicist, a member of the German Archaeological Institute and from 1880 Fellow of Exeter and Rector from 1913 to 1928.

152

152  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 83 Webb, Diary, 28 October 1922. 84 Troeltsch to von Hügel, 7 December 1922, Troeltsch, Briefe, 143. 85 Troeltsch to von Hügel, 29 December 1922, Troeltsch, Briefe, 146. 86 Kemp Smith to von Hügel, 6 November 1922, Barmann (ed.), Letters, 184. 87 Kemp Smith sailed to the USA on 26 December 1922. 88 Kemp Smith to von Hügel, 17 December 1922, Barmann (ed.), Letters (see n.46), 189–​90. 89 Von Hügel to Kemp Smith, 20 December 1922, Barmann (ed.): Letters, 192. 90 Troeltsch to von Hügel, 29 December 1922, Troeltsch, Briefe, 146. 91 Troeltsch to von Hügel, 29 December 1922, Troeltsch. Briefe, 147. 92 Webb, Diary, 22 January 1923. 93 Webb, Diary, 20 January 1923. 94 Edward Mewburn Walker (1857–​1941) was a Greek Historian and Fellow of The Queen’s College, Oxford from 1881 to 1930. 95 Webb, Diary, 27 January 1923. 96 Webb, Diary, 21 January 1923. 97 Webb, Diary, 2 February 1923. 98 Webb, Diary, 3 February 1923. 99 Von Hügel to Webb, 6 February 1923, cited in Bedoyère, Baron von Hügel, 346. Von Hügel also makes reference to Troeltsch’s death in his diaries, Von Hügel Papers, 5 February 1923, SAUL, MS 36362. 100 The Guardian 78 (16 February 1923): 144. 101 Oxford Magazine (8 February 1923): 203. 102 Eleanora Iredale (1892–​1966), a talented linguist, was involved in Friends’ Relief work during the War and became secretary to a number of committees, including international secretary to the SCM, as well as the ecumenist J.  H. Oldham and was a member of the Moot. She became Secretary to the Archbishop of York’s Committee on Unemployment in 1936, as well as the Council on the Christian Faith and Common Life, presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1939. After the Second World War, she became organizer of the brick giving scheme at Guildford Cathedral. See Keith Clements (ed.), The Moot Papers: Faith, Freedom and Society 1938–​1944 (London: T & T Clark, 2010), 28. On the Universities’ Committee of the Imperial War Relief Fund, which had William Beveridge as chair, see Georgina Brewis, A Social History of Student Volunteering: Britain and Beyond, 1880–​1980 (London: Palgrave, 2014), ch. 4. 103 See also Hübinger’s introduction to the KGA edition, 18. B. H. Streeter had been responsible in Oxford for organising the Committee and had met Troeltsch on a fact-​finding mission to Germany. Stanley Unwin, the publisher of the English edition of Troeltsch’s Social Teaching, was also present at the meeting with Troeltsch ‘who was in every way a big man’ and ‘open, frank, well-​informed’ (Stanley Unwin, The Truth About a Publisher: An Autobiographical Record (London: Allen & Unwin, seventh edition, 1960), 191). 104 William Temple (1881–​1944) was Bishop of Manchester, 1921–​29, Archbishop of York, 1929–​42, and Archbishop of Canterbury, 1942–​4. 105 William Ralph Inge (1860–​1954) was Fellow of Hertford College, Oxford, 1889–​1905, Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, 1907–​11, and Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral, London, 1911–​34. 106 William Boothby Selbie (1862–​1944) was Principal of the Congregationalist Mansfield College, Oxford, 1909–​32. He was awarded an Oxford D.D. in 1920 as one of the first non-​Conformists since the Reformation. Selbie’s (positive) opinion of Troeltsch is given in ‘Theology and the Thought of Today’, Hibbert Journal 87 (1924): 526–​40, 534. 107 The Guardian (9 February 1923): 114.

153

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 153 108 The Guardian (23 February 1923): 159. 109 Anti-​German feeling was, however, still strong in the country at large. For instance, in a letter to The Guardian on 2 February 1923 the Dean of Durham, J.  E. C.  Welldon, called for German repentance for War Crimes, which provoked a lively debate. 110 Webb, Diary, 6 March 1923. See ‘Ernst Troeltsch. Rede am Sarge Troeltschs’, Berliner Tageblatt (6 February 1923); also in Adolf von Harnack, Erforschtes und Erlebtes Adolf Harnack:  Reden und Aufsätze, Neue Folge, vol. 4 (Gieβen:  Töpelmann, 1923), 360–​ 7; translation by William Pauck, ‘Ernst Troeltsch:  A  Funeral Address delivered by Adolf von Harnack’, in Wilhelm Pauck, Harnack and Troeltsch: Two Historical Theologians (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 117–​28. 111 Webb, Diary, 8 March 23. 112 Oxford Magazine (22 February 1923): 237. 113 In his diaries of 30 January 1923 Webb reports that von Hügel had written to say that Troeltsch had been declared out of danger. 114 I.e. the Oxford Examination Schools which are also used as lecture theatres. 115 Von Hügel to Webb, 21 February 1923, Von Hügel: Selected Letters, 365. 116 Webb, Diary, 22 February 1923. 117 Oxford Magazine (8 March 1923): 271. 118 Reginald Walter Macan (1848–​ 1941) studied at Jena and Zürich. He was Lecturer at Brasenose College from 1883 to 1890, Fellow of University College from 1884 to 1906, Reader in Ancient History from 1890 to 1910, and Master of University College, Oxford from 1906 to 1923. 119 Charles Frederick Nolloth (1850–​ 1932) was a Parish Priest and honorary Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford from 1922. He was benefactor of Webb’s Chair, which was later renamed the Nolloth Professorship. 120 Paul V.  M. Benecke (1868–​1944) was a theologian and Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford from 1891. 121 Webb’s wife. 122 Webb, Diary, 9 March 1923. 123 Oxford Magazine (15 March 1923): 295. 124 The Guardian (16 March 1923): 236. 125 Davidson’s Diary cited in Bell, Randall Davidson, 1170. 126 Troeltsch had written to von Hügel outlining the themes of the lectures on 25 July 1922 (Troeltsch:  Briefe, 131–​2). They would be:  ‘The meaning of ethics for the Philosophy of history’. There would be three themes:  1.  Human Rights; 2.  The Idea of Progress and 3.  The Religious Ties of Culture. In the event the three lectures given at London were ‘The Morality of the Personality and the Conscience’; ‘The Ethics of the Cultural Values’ and ‘The Common Spirit’. A further lecture was to be given to the London Society for the Study of Religion: ‘Politics, Patriotism and Religion’. 127 Otto von Gierke, Natural Law and the Theory of Society (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1934). 128 The Guardian (9 February 1923): 114. 129 Barker, Age and Youth, 137. Barker left virtually no correspondence until the year 1925. I  am grateful to Nicholas Barker and M.S. Golding, librarian of Peterhouse, Cambridge, for this information. There is no correspondence extant between von Hügel and Barker. 130 Notice in The Guardian (20 April 1923): 348. 131 The Guardian (11 May 1923): 434. 132 I am grateful to Mrs B.  C. Weeden, Archivist, London University, for this information.

154

154  Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 133 Bedoyère, Baron von Hügel, 346. Webb too evidently felt the whole episode deeply and reflected in his diary his own despair. ‘My soul’, he wrote on 30 March 1923  ‘is clouded by many doubts:  and I  have become conscious that of faith, hope and love I have scarcely any or rather none at all. I have never acquired the habit of prayer: and my spiritual life is empty, dreary, without any firm basis in conviction or even in feeling. My God! My God!’ 134 Webb, Diary, 16 and 17 March 1923. 135 Von Hügel replied on 17 April 1923 enclosing a copy of Troeltsch’s lecture, Die Bedeutung der Geschichtlichkeit Jesu (Tübingen: Mohr, 1911). Webb, Diary, 17 April 1923. 136 Webb to von Hügel, 1 April 1923, Von Hügel Papers, SAUL MS. 3220. 137 Webb, Diary, 8 June 1923; 12 June 1923. Webb’s enthusiasm for Troeltsch evidently did not wane: he spent the rest of year from 20 May 1923 reading Die Soziallehren at von Hügel’s suggestion and found it a ‘remarkable book’ (Webb, Diary, 19 December 1923). 138 Von Hügel to Kemp Smith, 4 July 1923, Barmann (ed.),  Letters, 196–​7. The Introduction is dated Midsummer’s Day 1923 (21 July 1923). See Troeltsch, Christian Thought, xxxi. 139 See Barmann (ed.), Letters, 193. 140 Troeltsch: Christian Thought, xvii. 141 Von Hügel, The Mystical Element in Religion as studied in St. Catherine of Genoa and her Friends (London, J.M. Dent, 1908, second edition, 1923). 142 Von Hügel to Kemp Smith, 4 July 1923, Barmann (ed.), Letters, 196–​7. 143 Kemp Smith to von Hügel, 21 July 1923, Barmann (ed.), Letters, 199–​200. 144 Kemp Smith to von Hügel, 25 August 1923, Barmann (ed.), Letters, 201. 145 Kemp Smith to von Hügel, 31 December 1923, Barmann (ed.), Letters, 209–​11. 146 The Press eventually became the Athlone Press in 1951, which in turn was taken over by Hodder and Stoughton in 1973. I am grateful to Mrs B. C. Weeden for this information. 147 Von Hügel to Kemp Smith, 13 February 1924, Barmann (ed.), Letters, 213–​14. 148 Webb, Diary, 15 February 1924. 149 Von Hügel to Kemp Smith, 24 February 1924, Barmann (ed.), Letters, 214–​15. 150 Kemp Smith to von Hügel, 2 March 1924, Barmann (ed.), Letters, 215. 151 Webb, Review of Ernst Troeltsch, Christian Thought, The Hibbert Journal 22 (1923–​24): 603–​8. James Moffatt of Glasgow had given the book a short notice along with Robert Skillen Sleigh’s account of Troeltsch’s thought: The Sufficiency of Christianity (London, James Clark, 1923) in Hibbert Journal 22 (1924): 387. 152 The Modern Churchman 13 (1923–​24): 667–​72. 153 The Modern Churchman 13 (1923–​24): 672. Webb was forced to respond in a letter to the editor where he pointed out that ‘polymorphous’ truth was not an invention of von Hügel’s but was Troeltsch’s own expression (The Modern Churchman 14 (1924–​25): 45). Morrison apologised in the August issue. 154 Church Quarterly Review 94 (1924–​25): 116–​21. 155 Von Hügel, Essays and Addresses on the Philosophy of Religion (London:  J. M. Dent, 1921). 156 The Guardian 79 (1 February 1924): 92. 157 Expository Times 35:5 (February 1924): 199. 158 ‘Recent Foreign Theology:  Troeltsch’s Last Book’, Expository Times 35:3 (December 1923): 274–​6. 159 See Chapman, ‘Der Historismus in England and England in Der Historismus’. 160 See Troeltsch Christian Thought, viii. Webb’s suggestion had been History and Religion or Religion and History.

155

Troeltsch’s proposed Lectures of 1923 155 161 It has now been published in Gangolf Hübinger in collaboration with Andreas Terwey, Fünf Vorträge zu Religion und Geschichtsphilosophie für England und Schottland [Five Lectures on Religion and Philosophy of History for England and Scotland:  Christian Thought. Its History and Application] (Berlin:  de Gruyter, 2006), Ernst Troeltsch Kritische Gesamtausgabe vol. 17. 162 Troeltsch, Christian Thought, 129. 163 Troeltsch: Christian Thought, 128. 164 Troeltsch: Christian Thought, xxxi.

156

Bibliography

Unpublished Papers Francis Crawford Burkitt Papers, Cambridge University Library. Friedrich von Hügel Papers, St Andrews University Library London University Press archives, University of London archives. Leighton Pullan Papers, Pusey House Library, Oxford. William Sanday Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford. A. H. Sayce Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford. C. S. Sherrington Papers, Sherrington Library, Oxford. Ernst-​Troeltsch-​Archiv, Munich. C. C. J. Webb Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford.

Newspapers Church Times Commonwealth The Guardian Manchester Guardian Morning Leader Oxford Magazine The Times

Printed Sources ‘Address of the German Theologians to the Evangelical Christians Abroad’ in To the Christian Scholars of Europe and America:  A  Reply from Oxford to the German Address to Evangelical Christians (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1914), 19–​23. ‘An die evangelischen Christen im Ausland’ (dated 4 September), Die Eiche 3 (1915): 49–​53. ‘An die Kulturwelt’, Berliner Tageblatt, 4 October 1914. Anglican and Eastern Association for promoting Intercommunion between the Anglican and Eastern-​Orthodox Churches (no place or publisher) Sixth report (October 1914–​March 1921).

157

Bibliography 157 The Anglican and Eastern Churches:  A  Historical Record 1914–​1921 (Published for the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1921). Apfelbacher, Karl-​Ernst, Frömmigkeit und Wissenschaft:  Ernst Troeltsch und sein theologisches Programm (Munich, Paderborn, Vienna: Schöningh, 1978). Apfelbacher, Karl-​Ernst and Neuner, Peter (eds), Ernst Troeltsch. Briefe an Friedrich von Hügel, 1901–​1923 (Paderborn: Bonifacius-​Druckerei, 1974). ‘Appeal of the German Universities’, New  York Times Current History of the European War 1 (1914): 187–​8. Axenfeld, Karl et  al., ‘Noch einmal ein Wort an die evangelischen Christen im Auslande’, 20 November 1914, Die Eiche 3 (1915): 67–​75. Bailey, Charles E, ‘Gott mit uns: Germany’s Protestant Theologians in the First World War’, Ph.D. thesis (University of Virginia, 1978). Bailey, Charles E., ‘The British Protestant Theologians in the First World War: Germanophobia Unleashed’, Harvard Theological Review 77: 2 (1984): 195–​221 Baker, Derek (ed.), Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History (Oxford:  Blackwell, 1977). Baker, Elizabeth Balmer and Baker, P. J. Noel, J. Allen Baker MP. A Memoir (London:  The Swarthmore Press, 1927). Barker, Ernest, Political Thought in England 1848–​1914 (London: Oxford University Press, 1928). Barker, Ernest, Age and Youth. Memories of Three Universities and Father of the Man (London: Oxford University Press, 1953). Barmann, Lawrence F., Baron Friedrich von Hügel and the Modernist Crisis in England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). Barmann, Lawrence F., ‘The Origins and Early History of the London Society for the Study of Religion (1904–​1918) as an expression of Modernism’ in Francis S. Fiorenza and James C. Livingston (eds), Culture, Protestantism and Catholic Modernism (Berkeley:  American Academy of Religion Nineteenth Century Theology Working Group, 1977), 112–​40. Barmann, Lawrence F. (ed.), The Letters of Baron Friedrich von Hügel and Professor Norman Kemp Smith (New York: Fordham University Press, 1981). Barth, Karl, ‘Evangelical Theology in the Nineteenth Century (1956)’, in The Humanity of God (London: Collins, 1961), 11–​33. Barth, Karl, The Humanity of God (London: Collins, 1961). Bassi, Hasko von, Otto Baumgarten. Ein ‘moderner Theologe’ im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik (Frankfurt am Main and New York: P. Lang, 1988). Baumgarten, Otto, ‘Gottes Gerechtigkeit’, Evangelische Freiheit 14 (1914): 329–​35. Baumgarten, Otto, Der Krieg und die Bergpredigt (Speech given in Berlin on 10 May 1915) (Berlin: Carl Heymann, 1915). Baumgarten, Otto, Politik und Moral (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1916). Baumgarten, Otto, ‘Aufgabe und Schwierigkeiten unserer Predigt bei herannahendem Frieden’, Evangelische Freiheit 18 (1918): 9. Baumgarten, Otto, Geistige und sittliche Wirkungen des Krieges in Deutschland (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-​Anstalt, 1927). Baumgarten, Otto, Meine Lebensgeschichte (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1929). Bebbington, David, ‘Atonement, Sin and Empire, c. 1880–​1914’ in Andrew Porter (ed.), The Imperial Horizons of British Protestant Missions, 1880–​1914 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 14–​31.

158

158 Bibliography Bedoyère, Michael de la, The Life of Baron von Hügel (London, J.M. Dent, 1951). Bell, G. K.  A., Randall Davidson (London:  Oxford University Press, 1935; third edition, 1952). Bell, Stuart, ‘Malign or Maligned? –​Arthur Winnington-​Ingram, Bishop of London, in the First World War’, Zeitschrift für neuere Theologiegeschichte /​Journal for the History of Modern Theology 20 (2013): 117–​33. Bernhardi, Friedrich Adolf Julius von, Deutschland und der Nächste Krieg (Stuttgart and Berlin: J.G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung, 1912). English Translation by Allen H. Powles, Germany and the Next War (London: Edward Arnold, 1912). Besier, Gerhard, Die protestantischen Kirchen Europas im Ersten Weltkrieg. Ein Quellen-​ und Arbeitsbuch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984). Bevan, Edwyn, Brothers All:  The War and the Race Question (London:  Oxford University Press, 1914). Bevan, Edwyn, ‘The Problem of the New Germany’, Church Quarterly Review 88 (1919): 253–​71. Blackbourn, David and Eley, Geoff, The Peculiarities of German History. Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth Century Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984). Blunden, Margaret, ‘The Anglican Church During the War’ in Warwick (ed.), The South African War, 279–​91. Bonner, Jeremy and Chapman, Mark D. (eds), After Kikuyu: Sacramental and Ecumenical Strife in English and African Anglicanism (forthcoming). Bontrager, Shannon Ty, ‘The Imagined Crusade:  The Church of England and the Mythology of Nationalism and Christianity during the Great War’, Church History 71:4 (2002): 774–​98. Brakelmann, Günter, Protestantische Kriegstheologie im ersten Weltkrieg. Reinhold Seeberg als Theologe des deutschen Imperialismus (Bielefeld: Luther-​Verlag, 1974). Brakelmann, Günter, Krieg und Gewissen. Otto Baumgarten als Politiker und Theologe im ersten Weltkrieg (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). Brewis, Georgina, A Social History of Student Volunteering:  Britain and Beyond, 1880–​1980 (London: Palgrave, 2014). Brocke, Bernhard vom, ‘Wissenschaft und Militarismus: Der Aufruf der 93 “An die Kulturwelt!” und der Zusammenbruch der internationalen Gelehrtenrepublik im Ersten Weltkrieg’ in William M. Calder III (ed.), Wilamowitz nach 50 Jahren (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985), 649–​719. Brown, Stewart J., Providence and Empire, 1815–​1914 (London: Longman, 2008). Brückner, Martin, Die Entstehung der Paulinischen Christologie (Straßburg: J. H. E. Heitz, 1903). Bryce, James, Impressions of South Africa (London:  Macmillan, 1897, third edition, 1899). Bultmann, Rudolf, ‘Die liberale Theologie und die jüngste theologische Bewegung’ in Glauben und Verstehen I (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, fourth edition, 1964), 1–​25. English translation by L. P. Smith:  ‘Liberal Theology and the Latest Theological Movement’ in Faith and Understanding 1, R.W. Funk (ed.) (London:  SCM, 1969), 28–​52. Burkitt, F. C., ‘Johannes Weiss: In Memoriam’, Harvard Theological Review 8 (1915): 291–​7. Byford, Jovan, Denial and Repression of Antisemitism: Post-​Communist Remembrance of the Serbian Bishop Nikolaj Velimirovicˊ (Budapest and New  York: Central European University Press, 2008).

159

Bibliography 159 Cairns, David, An Autobiography. Some Recollections of a Long Life. And Selected Letters, edited by his son and daughter (London: SCM, 1950). Calder III, William M. (ed.), Wilamowitz nach 50 Jahren (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985). ‘The Cause of the War’, Journal of the American Medical Association 71 (1918): 297–​8. Champneys, Arthur C., ‘Criticism’ as made in Germany and Common Sense (London: Skeffington, 1915). Chapman, Mark D., ‘A Theology for Europe:  Universality and Particularity in Christian Theology’, Heythrop Journal 25 (1994): 125–​39. Chapman, Mark D., ‘Der Historismus in England and England in Der Historismus’ in Friedrich Wilhelm Graf (ed.), Der Historismus und seine Probleme, Troeltsch-​ Studien, vol. 11 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 181–​99. Chapman, Mark D., The Coming Crisis: The Impact of Eschatology on Theology in Edwardian England (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). Chapman, Mark D., Ernst Troeltsch and Liberal Theology:  Religion and Cultural Synthesis in Wilhelmine Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Chapman, Mark D., Bishops, Saints and Politics (London: T & T Clark, 2007). Chapman, Mark D., The Fantasy of Reunion: Anglicans, Catholics, and Ecumenism 1833–​1882 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Chapman, Mark D., Theology and Society in Three Cities:  Berlin, Oxford and Chicago, 1800–​1914 (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2014). Chapman, Mark D., ‘Kikuyu, Anglo-​Catholics and the Church of England’ in Jeremy Bonner and Mark Chapman (eds), After Kikuyu: Sacramental and Ecumenical Strife in English and African Anglicanism (forthcoming). Chesterton, G. K., ‘The Serbs in History:  Harnack and Teutonism, Again’, The Illustrated London News, 10 October 1914, in G. K. Chesterton, Collected Works (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986–​), vol. 30, 175–​6. Chesterton, G. K. ‘On Rescuing the Serbs’, The Illustrated London News, April 15, 1916, in G. K. Chesterton, Collected Works (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986–​), vol. 30, 411. Chesterton, G. K., ‘The Thing Called a Nation: The Spiritual Issue of the War’, The Daily News, 28 June 1916, in F. W. Harvey (ed.), The Lay of Kossovo, 32–​5. Chesterton, G. K., Collected Works (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986–​). Chirol, Valentine, Serbia and the Serbs (London: Oxford University Press, 1914). The Churches and International Friendship, Report of Conferences held at Constance 1914 (London and New  York:  World Alliance of Churches for Promoting International Friendship, 1914). Churchill, Lord Randolph, Men, Mines and Animals in Southern Africa (first edition, 1892) (London: Sampson, Low and Marston, new edition, 1897). Clark, Christopher, The Sleepwalkers:  How Europe Went to War in 1914 (London: Penguin, 2013). Clements, Keith, Lovers of Discord: Twentieth-​Century Theological Controversies in England (London: SPCK, 1988). Clements, Keith, Faith on the Frontier: A Life of J. H. Oldham (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999). Clements, Keith (ed.), The Moot Papers:  Faith, Freedom and Society 1938–​ 1944 (London: T & T Clark, 2010). Cohen, Hermann, Schriften zur Philosophie und Zeitgeschichte, 2 vols (Berlin: Akademie-​Verlag, 1928).

160

160 Bibliography Cohen, Hermann, ‘Vom ewigen Frieden (1914)’ in Hermann Cohen, Schriften zur Philosophie und Zeitgeschichte, 2 vols (Berlin: Akademie-​Verlag, 1928), ii, 342–​6. Cuthbertson, Greg, ‘Missionary Imperialism and Colonial Warfare:  London Missionary Society Attitudes to the South African War, 1899–​1902’, South African Historical Journal 19 (1987): 93–​114. Cuthbertson, Greg, ‘Pricking the “nonconformist conscience”:  religion against the South African War’ in Donal Lowry (ed.), The South African War Re-​appraised, 169–​87. Cuthbertson, Greg, ‘Preaching Imperialism: Wesleyan Methodism and the War’ in David Omissi and Andrew Thompson (eds), The Impact of the South African War, 157–​72. Dark, Sidney, Mackay of All Saints (London: The Centenary Press, 1937). Davey, Arthur, The British Pro-​Boers 1877–​1902 (Cape Town: Tafelberg, 1978). [Davidson, Randall Thomas] The Archbishop of Canterbury, Kikuyu (London: Macmillan, 1915). Davidson, Randall Thomas, The Testing of a Nation (London: Macmillan, 1919). Dearmer, Nan, The Life of Percy Dearmer (London: The Book Club, 1941). Drescher, Hans-​Georg, Ernst Troeltsch: Leben und Werk (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). English translation by John Bowden: Ernst Troeltsch: His Life and Work, (London: SCM, 1992). Dutton, David, The Politics of Diplomacy: Britain and France in the Balkans in the First World War (London: I. B. Tauris, 1998). Eccles, John C. and Gibson, William C., Sherrington, His Life and Thought (Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer, 1979). Emmert, Thomas A., Serbian Golgotha:  Kosovo, 1389 (Boulder:  East European Monographs, 1990). Epting, Karl-​Christoph, ‘Die erste internationale Konferenz der Kirchen für Frieden und Freundschaft in Konstanz 1914’, Ökumenische Rundschau 34 (1986): 7–​25. Evans, Sir Arthur, ‘Serbia’s Greatest Battle’, Times, 28 June 1916, in Harvey (ed.), The Lay of Kossovo, 18–​20. Evans, G. R., Edward Hicks: Pacifist Bishop at War (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2014). Fanon, Frantz, The Wretched of the Earth (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1967). Figgis, J. N., Gospel and Human Needs (London: Longmans, 1909). Figgis, J. N., Civilisation at the Cross Roads (London: Longmans, 1912). Figgis, J. N., Antichrist and Other Sermons (London: Longmans, 1913). Figgis, J. N., Hopes for English Religion (London: Longmans, 1919). Figgis, J. N., The Political Aspects of S.  Augustine’s ‘City of God’ (London: Longmans, 1921). Fiorenza, Francis S. and Livingston, James C. (eds), Culture, Protestantism and Catholic Modernism (Berkeley:  American Academy of Religion Nineteenth Century Theology Working Group, 1977). Flasch, Kurt, Die geistige Mobilmachung. Die deutschen Intellektuellen und der Erste Weltkrieg (Berlin: Alexander Fest Verlag, 2000). Forbes, Nevill, The Southern Slavs (London: Oxford University Press, 1914–​15). Forbes, Nevill and Subotić, Dragutin, Serbian Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1918). Forbes, Nevill, Toynbee, Arnold, Mitrany, David, and Hogarth, David G., The Balkans: a History of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1915).

161

Bibliography 161 Fowler, J. H., The Life and Letters of Edward Lee Hicks (Bishop of Lincoln, 1910–​ 1919) (London: Christophers, 1922). Fussell, Paul, The Great War and Modern Memory (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975). Gellner, Ernest, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983). Gellner, Ernest, Encounters with Nationalism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994). Gellner, Ernest, ‘The Sacred and the National’ in Ernest Gellner, Encounters with Nationalism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 59–​73. Gierke, Otto von, Unsere Friedensziele (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1917). Gierke, Otto von, Natural Law and the Theory of Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934). Glotz, Peter, Der Irrweg des Nationalstaats, Europäische Reden an ein deutsches Publikum (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-​Anstalt, 1990). Gooch, John (ed.), The Boer War:  Direction, Experience and Image (London: Cass, 2000) Gordon, Frank J., ‘Liberal German Churchmen and the First World War’, German Studies Review 41 (1981): 39–​62. Gore, Charles, The Basis of Anglican Fellowship in Faith and Organisation (London: Mowbray, 1914). Graf, F. W., ‘Max Weber und die protestantische Theologie seiner Zeit’, Zeitschrift für Religion und Geistesgeschichte 40 (1987): 122–​47. Graf, F. W., ‘Schmerz der Moderne, Wille zur Ganzheit. Protestantismus 1914 –​und was davon geblieben ist’, Lutherische Monatshefte 10 (1989): 458–​63. Graf, F. W., ‘Das Kreuz mit dem Gewissen. Protestantismus in der neuen Bundesrepublik’, Nachrichten der Evangelisch-​Lutherischen Kirche in Bayern 48 (1993): 41–​4. Graf, F. W. and Ruddies, Hartmut, Ernst Troeltsch Bibliographie (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1982). Graf, F. W. and Tanner, Klaus, ‘Reinhold Seeberg’ in F.W. Graf (ed.), Profile des neuzeitlichen Protestantismus, 3 vols (Gütersloh:  Gerd Mohn, 1990–​ 93), ii, part 2, 354–​97. Gray, Donald, Percy Dearmer: A Parson’s Pilgrimage (Norwich: Canterbury, 2000). Gregory, Adrian, ‘A Clash of Cultures:  The British Press and the Opening of the Great War’ in Troy E. Paddock (ed.), A Call to Arms: Propaganda, Public Opinion, and Newspapers in the Great War (Westport, Connecticut:  Praeger, 2004), 15–​50 Gregory, Adrian, The Last Great War:  British Society and the First World War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). The guilt of Germany for the war of German aggression: Prince Karl Lichnowsky’s memorandum; being the story of his ambassadorship at London from 1912 to August, 1914, together with Foreign Minister von Jagow’s reply (New  York: Putnam’s, 1918). Gwatkin, H. M., The Confirmation Rubric: Whom Does it Bind? (London: Longmans, 1914). Gwatkin, H. M., Episcopacy. 1. In Scripture; 2. In the Church of England (London: Longmans, 1914). ‘H. H. E & H. E.’, ‘Safeguarded’ (Birmingham, 1915). Hallett, Christine E., Veiled Warriors:  Allied Nurses of the First World War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).

162

162 Bibliography Hammond, J., Buxton H. J. W., and Lowry, S. C., Three Plain Sermons for the Day of Intercession (London: Skeffington, 1900). Harnack, Adolf von, Die Dienstentlassung des Pfarrers Lic. G.  Traub (Leipzig:  J. C. Hinrich, 1912). Harnack, Adolf von, Aus der Friedens-​und Kriegsarbeit (Giessen: Topelmann, 1916). Harnack, Adolf von, ‘Rede zur “deutsch-​amerikanischen Sympathie-​Kundgebung,” ’ and ‘Ein Schreiben von elf englischen Theologen, Aug. 27, 1914’, in Harnack, Aus der Friedens-​und Kriegsarbeit (Giessen: Topelmann, 1916), 283–​93. Harnack, Adolf von, ‘Ernst Troeltsch. Rede am Sarge Troeltschs’, Berliner Tageblatt (6 February 1923); also in Adolf von Harnack, Erforschtes und Erlebtes Adolf Harnack:  Reden und Aufsätze, Neue Folge, vol. 4 (Gieβen:  Töpelmann, 1923), 360–​ 67; translation by William Pauck, ‘Ernst Troeltsch:  A  Funeral Address delivered by Adolf von Harnack’, in Wilhelm Pauck, Harnack and Troeltsch: Two Historical Theologians (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 117–​28. Harnack, Adolf von, Erforschtes und Erlebtes Adolf Harnack: Reden und Aufsätze, Neue Folge, vol. 4 (Gieβen: Töpelmann, 1923). Harvey, F. W. (ed.), The Lay of Kossovo:  Serbia’s Past and Present (1389–​1917) (London: Kossovo Day Committee, 1917). Havel, Václav, ‘On Hatred (1990)’ in Czech Writers on Tolerance (Prague: Readers International, 1994), 13–​23. Heath, Gordon L., ‘Sin in the Camp: The Day of Humble Supplication in the Church of England in Canada in the Early Months of the South African War’, Journal of the Canadian Historical Society 44 (2002): 207–​26. Heath, Gordon L., A War with a Silver Lining:  Canadian Protestant Churches and the South African War, 1899–​1902 (Montreal:  McGill-​Queen’s University Press, 2009). Heine, Wolfgang, Zu Deutschlands Erneuerung (Jena: Diederichs, 1916). Hensley Henson, Herbert, The Issue of Kikuyu: A Sermon (London: Macmillan, 1914). Hensley Henson, Herbert, Retrospect of an Unimportant Life, 2 vols (London: Oxford University Press, 1942). Hewison, Hope Hay, Hedge of Wild Almonds: South Africa, the Pro-​Boers and the Quaker Conscience 1890–​1910 (London: James Currey, 1989). Hibberd, Dominic, The First World War (London: Macmillan, 1990). Hinneberg, Paul (ed.), Die Kultur der Gegenwart (Berlin and Leipzig: Teubner, 1906). Hobhouse, Emily, The Brunt of the War and Where it Fell (London: Methuen, 1902). Hobsbawm, E. J., Nations and Nationalism Since 1780 (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1992). Hobson, J. A., The Psychology of Jingoism (London: G. Richards, 1901). Hobson, J. A., Imperialism: A Study (London: Nisbet, 1902). Holland, Henry Scott, ‘Notes of the Month’, Commonwealth 20 (1915): 39–​40. Hoover, Arlie J., The Gospel of Nationalism. German Patriotic Preaching from Napoleon to Versailles (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1986). Hoover, Arlie J., God, Germany and Britain in the Great War: a Study in Clerical Nationalism (New York: Praeger, 1989). Horne, John N. and Kramer, Alan, German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001). Hoskyns, E. C. and Davey, F. N., Crucifixion–​Resurrection (London: SPCK, 1981). Hügel, Friedrich von, The Mystical Element in Religion as studied in St. Catherine of Genoa and her Friends (London, J.M. Dent, 1908, second edition, 1923).

163

Bibliography 163 Hügel, Friedrich von, Essays and Addresses on the Philosophy of Religion (London: J. M. Dent, 1921). Hügel, Friedrich von, ‘Ernst Troeltsch’, Times Literary Supplement 22 (1923): 216. Hügel, Friedrich von, Selected Letters, ed. Bernard Holland (London:  J. M. Dent, 1927). Hügel, Friedrich von, Letters from Baron Friedrich von Hügel to a Niece (London: J.M. Dent, 1929). Hughes, Michael, ‘The English Slavophile: W. J. Birkbeck and Russia’, The Slavonic and East European Review 82 (2004): 680–​706. Hutchinson, John and Smith, Anthony D. (eds), Nationalism (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1994). Hynes, Samuel, A War Imagined: The First World War and English Culture (London: Pimlico, 1992). Inge, W. R., The End of an Age: and Other Essays (London: Putnam, 1948). Jacks, L. P., The Confessions of an Octogenarian (London: Allen and Unwin, 1941). Jackson, Henry Latimer, The Eschatology of Jesus (London: Macmillan, 1913). Jasper, Ronald, Arthur Cayley Headlam (London: Faith Press, 1960). Jenkins, Julian, ‘War Theology, 1914 and Germany’s Sonderweg: Luther’s Heirs and Patriotism’, The Journal of Religious History 15 (1989): 292–​310. ‘Junius’, Chronik, Neue Rundschau 27 (1916): 96–​103. Kemp Smith, Norman, The Present Situation in Philosophy (Edinburgh:  J. Thin, 1919). Keynes, John Maynard, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Collected Works, vol. ii) (London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1971). Keyserling, Count Hermann von, ‘On the Meaning of The War’, The Hibbert Journal 51 (1915): 523–​45. Kitchin, G. W., Overcome Evil with Good (Durham: Caldcleugh, 1900) (Issued by the South Africa Conciliation Committee). Klimon, William M., ‘Chesterton, Kossovo of the Serbians, and the Vocation of the Christian Nation’, The Chesterton Review 20:1 (1994): 41–​53. Knox-​Little, W. J., Sketches and Studies in South Africa (London: Isbister, 1899). Krebs, Paula M., ‘“The Last of the Gentlemen’s Wars”:  Women in the Boer War Concentration Camp Controversy’, History Workshop Journal 33 (1992): 38–​56. Krebs, Paula M., Gender, Race, and the Writing of Empire: Public Discourse and the Boer War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Krippner, Monica, The Quality of Mercy: Women at War Serbia, 1915–​18 (Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1980). Kuitenbrouwer, Vincent, War of Words: Dutch Pro-​Boer Propaganda and the South African War (1899–​1902) (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012). Laffan, R. G.  D., The Guardians of the Gate:  Lectures on the Serbs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1918). Langford, Thomas A., In Search of Foundations:  English Theology, 1900–​1920 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1969). Laski, H. J., Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 1917). Lewis, Henrietta Stakesby, A Message from South Africa to the Christian People of Great Britain (London: Marshall Brothers, 1900). Lichnowsky, Prince Karl, My Mission to London, 1912–​1914 (London:  Cassell, 1918).

164

164 Bibliography Lipton, Sir Thomas, The Terrible Truth About Serbia (London:  British Red Cross Society, 1915). Lloyd George, David, ‘Serbia and Austria’, in Garland Greever (ed.), War Writing (New York: The Century Co., 1919), 278–​80. Lowry, Donal (ed.), The South African War Re-​appraised (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000). Lübbe, Hermann, Politische Philosophie in Deutschland (Basel and Stuttgart: B. Schwabe, 1963). Lubenow, William C., ‘Synthetic Society (act. 1896–​1909)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press) at: www.oxforddnb.com/​ view/​theme/​96304 (accessed 6 Feb 2016). McDonald, J. G., Rhodes: A Life (London: P. Allen, 1927). Mackintosh, H. R., ‘Recent Foreign Theology:  Troeltsch’s Last Book’, Expository Times 35:3 (December 1923): 274–​6. Mackintosh, H. R., Types of Modern Theology (London: Nisbet, 1937). Macmillan, Margaret, The War that Ended Peace: How Europe Abandoned Peace for the First World War (London: Profile Books, 2013). Markovich, S. G., ‘Anglophiles in Balkan Christian States, 1862–​1920’, Balcanica (2010): 95–​145. Marks, Alfred, The Churches and the South African War ‘Lest we forget’ (London:  New Age, 1905). Marrin, Albert, The Last Crusade; the Church of England in the First World War (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1974) Mead, W., ‘With a British Hospital in Serbia –​the Experiences of Lady Paget’s Unit at Skopje’, Worlds Work 26 (1915): 243–​58. Messinger, Gary S., British Propaganda and the State in the First World War (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992) Methuen, Charlotte, ‘An Account of the Making of the Appeal to All Christian People by George Bell and an Edition of the Redactions of the Appeal, with an Introductory Essay’ in Melanie Barber, Gabriel Sewell and Stephen Taylor (eds), From the Reformation to the Permissive Society:  A  Miscellany in Celebration of the 400th Anniversary of Lambeth Palace Library (Woodbridge:  Boydell & Brewer 2010), 521–​64. Mews, Stuart, ‘Spiritual Mobilization in the First World War’, Theology 74 (1971): 258–​64. Mews, Stuart, ‘Neo-​Orthodoxy, Liberalism and War: Karl Barth, P. T. Forsyth and John Oman, 1914–​ 1918’, in Derek Baker (ed.), Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History (Oxford:  Blackwell, 1977), 361–​75. Miller, Stephen M., ‘In Support of the “Imperial Mission”? Volunteering for the South African War, 1899–​1902’, The Journal of Military History 69 (2005): 691–​711. Mitchell, P. Chalmers, Evolution and the War (London: John Murray, 1915). Mitrović, Andrej, Serbia’s Great War (London: Hurst and Company, 2007). Morgan, Robert, ‘Non Angli sed Angeli: Some Anglican Reactions to German Gospel Criticism’ in New Studies in Theology 1, ed. Stephen Sykes and Derek Holmes (London: Duckworth, 1980), 1–​30. Morse-​Boycott, Desmond, The Secret History of the Oxford Movement (London: Skeffington, 1933). Moule, Handley, That They All May Be One (London: Longmans, 1914).

165

Bibliography 165 Murch, Jerom, Memoir of Robert Hibbert, esquire, founder of the Hibbert Trust (Bath:  W. Lewis for private circulation, 1874). Revised in 1933 for private circulation in The Book of the Hibbert Trust with an updated history of the Trust by W. H. Drummond. Nasson, Bill, ‘Totsiens to all that? South Africa’s Great War, 1899–​1902’, South African Historical Journal 32 (1995): 191–​205. Nasson, Bill, The South African War, 1899–​1902 (London: Arnold, 1999). Nasson, Bill, ‘Waging Total War in South Africa: Some Centenary Writings on the Anglo-​Boer War, 1899–​1902’, The Journal of Military History 66 (2002): 813–​28. Neville, Graham, Radical Churchman: Edward Lee Hicks and the New Liberalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). Newsome, David, Bishop Westcott and the Platonist Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). Newsome, David, Godliness and Good Learning: Four Studies in a Victorian Ideal (London: Cassell, 1988). Nicholls, David, The Pluralist State, second edition (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1994). Oakeley, Hilda D., ‘German Thought: The Real Conflict’, Church Quarterly Review 79 (1914): 95–​119. O’Brien, Conor Cruise, God’s Land:  Reflections on Religion and Nationalism (Cambridge, Mass and London: Harvard University Press, 1988). O’Brien, Conor Cruise, Ancestral Voices:  Religion and Nationalism in Ireland (Dublin: Poolbeg, 1994). Oman, Charles, ‘An Old Treason Against Christendom’, in Harvey (ed.), The Lay of Kossovo, 5–​10. Omissi, David and Thompson, Andrew (eds), The Impact of the South African War (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002). O’Neill, J. C., ‘Adolf von Harnack and the entry of the German state into war, July–​ August 1914’, Scottish Journal of Theology 55 (2002): 1–​18. Osterley, W. O. E., The Books of the Apocrypha (London: Scott, 1914). Paddock, Troy E. (ed.), A Call to Arms: Propaganda, Public Opinion, and Newspapers in the Great War (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2004). Pauck, Wilhelm, Harnack and Troeltsch:  Two Historical Theologians (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968). Porter, Andrew (ed.), The Imperial Horizons of British Protestant Missions, 1880–​ 1914 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). Porter, Andrew, Religion versus Empire: British Protestant Missionaries and Overseas Expansion, 1700–​1914 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004). Powell, Anne, Women in the War Zone:  Hospital Service in the First World War (Stroud: The History Press, 2009). Pressel, W., Die Kriegspredigt 1914–​18 in der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). Prestige, G. L., The Life of Charles Gore (London: Heinemann, 1935). Pretorius, Fransjordan, The Great Escape of the Boer Pimpernel, Christian de Wet: The Making of a Legend (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 2001). Pullan, Leighton, New Testament Criticism during the Past Century (London: Longmans, 1907). Pullan, Leighton, Missionary Principles and the Primate on Kikuyu. Three addresses with some observations on the present German movement in the Church of England (Oxford: Mowbray, 1915).

166

166 Bibliography Radojević, Mira and Dimić, Ljubodrag, Serbia in the Great War:  1914–​ 1918 (Belgrade:  Srpska Književna Zadruga/​Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals, 2014). Radonovic, Milan, ‘British Medical Missions in Serbia 1914–​1915’, The London Philatelist 121 (June 2012): 170–​82. Regan, Hilary and Torrance, Alan J. (eds), Christ and Context (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993). Renan, Ernest, Qu’est-​ce qu’une nation?: conférence faite en Sorbonne, le 11 mars 1882 (Paris: Calmann Lévy, 1882). ‘Reply to the German Professors by British Scholars’, New  York Times Current History of the European War 1 (1914): 188–​91. ‘A Reply to Harnack by Some British Theologians’ in New  York Times Current History of the European War 1 (1914): 201–​2. Robbins, Keith G., ‘Lord Bryce and the First World War’, The Historical Journal 10:2 (1967): 255–​77. Robinson, J. Armitage, Holy Ground:  Three Sermons on the War in South Africa (London: Macmillan, 1900). Rollmann, Hans, ‘Troeltsch, von Hügel and Modernism’, The Downside Review 96 (1978): 35–​60. Rollmann, Hans, ‘Ernst Troeltsch, Friedrich von Hügel and the Student Christian Movement’, The Downside Review 101 (1983): 217–​26. Root, John D., ‘George Tyrrell and the Synthetic Society’, The Downside Review 98 (1980): 42–​59. Root, John D., ‘The Correspondence of Friedrich von Hügel and Clement C.  J. Webb’, The Downside Review 99 (1981): 288–​98. Salter, A. T.  John, The Anglican Papalist:  A  Personal Portrait of Henry Joy Fynes-​ Clinton (London: The Anglo-​Catholic History Society, 2012). Sanday, William, Outlines of the Life of Christ (Edinburgh:  T & T Clark, 1905, second edition with revisions, 1906). Sanday, William, The Life of Christ in Recent Research (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1907) Sanday, William, ‘The Apocalyptic element in the Gospels’, Hibbert Journal 10 (1911): 83–​109. Sanday, William, Bishop Gore’s Challenge to Criticism: A Reply to the Bishop of Oxford’s Open Letter on the Basis of Anglican Fellowship (London: Longmans, 1914). Sanday, William, ‘The Constructive Quarterly from Within’, Constructive Quarterly 2 (1914): 1–​19. Sanday, William, The Deeper Causes of War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1914). Sanday, William, ‘On Continuity of Thought and Relativity of Expression’, Modern Churchman 5 (1915): 125–​42. Sanday, William, The Meaning of the War for Germany and Great Britain:  An Attempt at Synthesis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1915). German translation in Deutsch-​Evangelisch VI (1915): 246–​66, 289–​314. Sanday, William, In View of the End: A Retrospect and a Prospect (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1916). Sanday, William, When Should the War End? (London:  Evangelical Information Committee, 1917). German translation, ‘Wie soll der Krieg endigen?’, Wissen und Leben 10 (1917): 9–​16.

167

Bibliography 167 Sanday, William, ‘The Liberal Position in Regard to the Creeds and the Hereford appointment’, Hibbert Journal 17 (1918–​19): 75–​82. Sanday, William, The Position of Liberal Theology:  a friendly examination of the Bishop of Zanzibar’s Open Letter entitled ‘The Christ and the Critics’ (London: Faith Press, 1920). Sanday, William and Williams, N. P., Form and Content in the Christian Tradition:  A  Friendly Discussion between W.  Sanday, D.D.  and N.P. Williams, M.A. (London: Longmans, 1916). Scheler, Max, Der Genius des Krieges und der deutsche Krieg (Leipzig: Verlag der Weissen Bücher, 1915). Schieder, Theodor, Nationalismus und Nationalstaat. Studien zum nationalen Problemen im modernen Europa (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). Schlesinger, Philip, ‘Europeanness:  A  new Cultural Battlefield’ in Hutchinson and Smith (eds), Nationalism, 316–​25. Selbie, W. B., The War and Theology (London: Oxford University Press, 1915). Selbie, W. B.,‘Theology and the Thought of Today’, Hibbert Journal 87 (1924): 526–​40. Seton-​ Watson, Hugh and Seton-​ Watson, Christopher, The Making of a New Europe:  R.  W. Seton-​ Watson and the Last Years of Austria-​ Hungary (London: Methuen, 1981). Šijaković, Bogoljub, ‘A Critique of Balkanistic Discourse:  Contribution to the Phenomenology of Balkan “Otherness” ’, in Bogoljub Šijaković, The Presence of Transcendence: Essays on Facing the Other through Holiness, History, and Text (Los Angeles and Belgrade: Sebastian Press, 2013), 153–​81. Šijaković, Bogoljub, The Presence of Transcendence: Essays on Facing the Other through Holiness, History, and Text (Los Angeles and Belgrade: Sebastian Press, 2013). Sleigh, Robert Skillen, The Sufficiency of Christianity (London: James Clark, 1923). Smith, M. van Wyk, ‘The Poetry of the War’ in Warwick (ed.), The South African War, 292–​314. Smith, M.  van Wyk, ‘The Boers and the Anglo-​ Boer War (1899–​ 1902) in the Twentieth-​Century Moral Imaginary’, Victorian Literature and Culture 31 (2003): 429–​46. Soskice, Janet Martin, ‘The Truth Looks Different from Here or Seeking the Unity of Truth from a Diversity of Perspectives’ in Hilary Regan and Alan J. Torrance (eds), Christ and Context (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993), 43–​59. Sprengel, Peter, Geschichte der deutschsprachigen Literatur, 1900–​1918:  von der Jahrhundertwende bis zum Ende des ersten Weltkriegs (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2004). Stalin, Joseph, Marxism and the National and Colonial Question (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1936). Stanley, Brian, The Bible and the Flag: Protestant Mission and British Imperialism in the 19th and 20th Centuries (Leicester: Apollos, 1990). Steck, W. (ed.), Otto Baumgarten. Studien zu Leben und Werk (Neumünster: K. Wachholtz, 1986). Stephan, Werner, Aufstieg und Verfall der Linksliberalismus, 1918–​ 1933. Geschichte der Deutschen Demokratischen Partei (Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973). Stephenson, Alan, The Rise and Decline of English Modernism (London: SPCK, 1984). Stobart, Mabel St Clair, The Flaming Sword in Serbia and Elsewhere (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1916).

168

168 Bibliography Stock, Eugene, The Church in the Mission Field (London: Longmans, 1914). Stone, Gerald, ‘Forbes, Nevill (1883–​ 1929)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2004) at www.oxforddnb.com/​ view/​article/​39408 (accessed 8 Feb 2016). Stone, Norman, World War One: A Short History (London: Penguin, 2008). Streeter, B. H. (ed.), Foundations: A Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought. By Seven Oxford Men (London: Macmillan, 1912). Stromberg, Roland N., Redemption by War: The Intellectuals and 1914 (Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1982). Sykes, Stephen and Holmes, Derek (eds), New Studies in Theology 1 (London:  Duckworth, 1980). Tait, Arthur James, What is our Deposit? (London: Longmans, 1914). Tal, Uriel, Christians and Jews in Germany: Religion, Politics and Ideology in the Second Reich, 1870–​1914 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975). Tatlow, Tissington, The Story of the Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland (London: SCM Press, 1933). Taylor, T. F., J. Armitage Robinson: Eccentric, Scholar, and Churchman (Cambridge:  James Clarke, 1991). Temperley, Harold W. V., History of Serbia (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1917). Temple, William, Life of Bishop Percival (London: Macmillan, 1921). Theal, George McCall, History of the Boers in South Africa (London:  Sonnenschein, 1887). Thorogood, Bernard, The Flag and The Cross. National Limits and Church Universal (London: SCM Press, 1988). ‘To Americans in Germany’, New York Times Current History of the European War 1 (1914): 198–​201. To the Christian Scholars of Europe and America: A Reply from Oxford to the German Address to Evangelical Christians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1914). Todorova, Maria, Imagining the Balkans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, second edition, 2009). Trevelyan, G. M., The Servians and Austria (London: Wyman and Sons, 1914). Troeltsch, Ernst, Die Absolutheit des Christentums und die Religionsgeschichte (Tübingen:  J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1902, second edition, 1912). English translation by David Reid, The Absoluteness of Christianity and the History of Religions (London: SCM, 1972). Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Moralisten, englische’ in Realencyclopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, third edition (Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1903), vol. 13, 436–​ 61; reprinted as ‘Die englische Moralisten des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts’ in Aufsätze zur Geistesgeschichte und Religionssoziologie (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. iv) (Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr, 1925), 374–​429. Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche in der Neuzeit’ in Paul Hinneberg (ed.), Die Kultur der Gegenwart (Berlin and Leipzig: Teubner, 1906), part 1, section 4, 431–​755. Troeltsch, Ernst, Die Bedeutung der Geschichtlichkeit Jesu (Tübingen: Mohr, 1911) Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Die deutsche Idee von der Freiheit’, Neue Runschau 27 (1916): 50–​75; also in Deutscher Geist und Westeuropa. Gesammelte kulturphilosophische Aufsätze und Reden (1925), Hans Baron (ed.) (Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1966), 80–​107. Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Die Ideen von 1914’, Neue Runschau 27 (1916): 605–​24; also in Deutscher Geist und Westeuropa. Gesammelte kulturphilosophische Aufsätze und Reden (1925), Hans Baron (ed.) (Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1966), 31–​58.

169

Bibliography 169 Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Privatmoral und Staatsmoral’, Neue Runschau 27 (1916):  145–​ 69; also in Deutscher Geist und Westeuropa. Gesammelte kulturphilosophische Aufsätze und Reden (1925), Hans Baron (ed.) (Aalen:  Scientia Verlag, 1966), 134–​6. Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Verschiebungen der inneren Fronten’, Münchner Neueste Nachrichten (6 April 1918), editions 172 and 173. Troeltsch, Ernst, Der Historismus und seine Probleme (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1922). Troeltsch, Ernst, Die Sozialphilosophie des Christentums (Zürich, Sledwyla, 1922) Troeltsch, Ernst, Christian Thought. Its History and Application (London: University of London Press, 1923). The German edition was published as Der Historismus und seine Überwindung (Berlin:  Pan Verlag Rolf Heise, 1924). Republished in Gangolf Hübinger in collaboration with Andreas Terwey (ed.), Fünf Vorträge zu Religion und Geschichtsphilosophie für England und Schottland [Five Lectures on Religion and Philosophy of History for England and Scotland: Christian Thought. Its History and Application] (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), Ernst Troeltsch Kritische Gesamtausgabe vol. 17. Troeltsch, Ernst, Deutscher Geist und Westeuropa. Gesammelte kulturphilosophische Aufsätze und Reden (1925), Hans Baron (ed.) (Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1966). Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Meine Bücher’ in Aufsätze zur Geistesgeschichte und Religionssoziologie (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. iv) (Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr, 1925), 3–​18, here 12; ‘My Books’ in Ernst Troeltsch, Religion and History (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 365–​78, here 373. Troeltsch, Ernst, The Social Teaching [sic] of the Christian Churches (London: Allen and Unwin, 1931). Troeltsch, Ernst, Kritische Gesamtausgabe edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, Christian Albrecht and Gangolf Hübinger (Berlin: de Guryter, 2001–​). Tyrrell, George, Christianity at the Cross-​Roads (London: Longmans, 1909). Ungern-​Sternberg, Jürgen von and Ungern-​Sternberg, Wolfgang von, Der Aufruf ‘An der Kulturwelt’ (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996. Second expanded edition with a contribution from Trude Maurer as Menschen und Strukturen, Bd 21; Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main u.a. 2013). Unwin, Stanley, The Truth About a Publisher: An Autobiographical Record, seventh edition (London: Allen & Unwin, 1960). Velimirović, Nicholai, Serbia in Light and Darkness, with a Preface by the Archbishop of Canterbury (London: Longmans, 1916). Velimirović, Nicolai, The Religious Spirit of the Slavs: Three Lectures Given in Lent at St. Margaret’s, Westminster, Sermons On Subjects Suggested by the War, Third Series (London: Macmillan, 1916). Venables, George. A Stinging Rod for a Sinning Nation, Sermon preached in Burgh Castle, Suffolk after reading the Queen’s letter for the army in South Africa and Sufferers by the War (Norwich: Agas H. Goose, 1900). Wallace, Stuart, War and the Image of Germany:  British Academics 1914–​1918 (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1988). Warman, Guy, The Ministry and Unity (London: Longmans, 1914). Warwick, Peter (ed.), The South African War: The Anglo-​Boer War 1899–​1902 (London: Longman, 1980). Warwick, Peter, Black People and the South African War, 1899–​1902 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). Webb, Allan Becher, A Short Office of Intercession for Use During the Present War (London: Skeffington, 1900).

170

170 Bibliography Webb, C. C. J., ‘The Notion of Revelation’ in ‘Christian Revelation and the Similar Claims of Other Religions’, Pan-​Anglican Congress of 1908, Volume 3, Section B, Christian Truth and Other Intellectual Forces (London: SPCK, 1908), paper SB5. Webb, C. C.  J., Studies in the History of Natural Theology (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1915). Webb, C. C. J., Review of Ernst Troeltsch, Christian Thought, The Hibbert Journal 22 (1923–​24): 603–​8. Webb, C. C. J., ‘Friedrich von Hügel’, Dictionary of National Biography. 1922–​30 (London, Oxford University Press, 1937), 874–​6. Webb, C. C.  J., Review of M.  Nédoncelle:  Baron Friedrich von Hügel, Journal of Theological Studies 38 (1937): 320. Webb, C. C.  J., ‘Baron Friedrich von Hügel and His Contribution to Religious Philosophy’, Harvard Theological Review 42 (1949): 1–​18. Weber, Max, ‘Zwischen zwei Gesetzen’ in Gesammelte Politische Schriften, third edition, J. Winckelmann (ed.) (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1971). Weber, Max, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie, sixth edition (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1972). Weber, Max, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, fourth edition, J. Winckelmann (ed.) (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1973). Wehberg, Hans, Wider den Aufruf der 93 (Charlottenburg: Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft für Politik and Geschichte, 1920). Welch, David. Germany and Propaganda in World War I: Pacifism, Mobilization and Total War (London: I. B. Tauris, 2014). Westcott, Brooke Foss, The Obligations of Empire (London: Macmillan, 1900). Weston, Frank, Ecclesia Anglicana:  For what does she stand? An open letter to the Right Reverend Father in God, Edgar, Lord Bishop of St Albans (London: Longmans, 1913). Weston, Frank, The Case Against Kikuyu. A  Study in Vital Principles (London: Longmans, 1914). Weston, Frank, The Black Slaves of Prussia: an Open Letter Addressed to General Smuts (London: Universities Mission to Central Africa, 1918). Wilkinson, Alan, The Church of England and the First World War (London: SPCK, 1978). Wilkinson, Spenser (ed.), August 1914: The Coming of the War (London: Oxford University Press, 1914–​15). Wilkinson, Spenser, ‘The Question of Servia’, in Spenser Wilkinson (ed.), August 1914: The Coming of the War (London: Oxford University Press, 1914–​15), 7–​14. Winnebeck, Julia, Apostolikumsstreitigkeiten: Diskussionen um Liturgie, Lehre und Kirchenverfassung in der preußischen Landeskirche 1871–​ 1914 (Arbeiten zur Kirchen-​ und Theologiegeschichte) (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016). Zahn-​Harnack, Agnes von, Adolf von Harnack (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1951). Zahrnt, Heinz, The Question of God (London: Collins, 1969).

171

Index

Acland, T. D. 113 ‘Address of the German Theologians to Evangelical Christians Abroad’ 53–​4 ‘An die Kulturwelt’ 2, 48, 131; response of British Academics 89 Anglican and Eastern Churches’ Association see Orthodoxy Anglo-​Catholicism 1, 49, 56–​9, 67–​8, 75, 82 ‘Appeal to the Civilised Nations’ see ‘An die Kulturwelt’ Augustine of Hippo, St 38–​9 Baker, J. Allen 25–​6 Bang, J. P. 96 Barker, Ernest 24, 130, 135, 142, 143, 153n; Troeltsch’s London Lecture 140–​41 Barth, Karl 36, 47 Baumgarten, Otto 29–​34, 34; and Sermon on the Mount 30–​31; and ethics 31–​4 Bell, George 100 Benecke, Paul 139, 153n Bernhardi, Friedrich A. J. von 52, 55 Bethune-​Baker, J. F. 96 Bevan, Edwyn 106–​8, 119, 120n; Brothers All: The War and the Race Question 106–​7 Bienemann, G. A. 90 Birkbeck, W. J. 73 Boer War see South African War Bridges, Robert 91 British East Africa 49–​50 Bryce, James 9 Burkitt, F. C. 51, 66, 85, 86, 87, 98–​9, 99–​100, 103n, 131 Burney, Charles Fox 134, 151n

Bury, Herbert 69 Buxton, H. J. Wilmot 12–​13, 16 Cairns, David Smith 128, 137 Carlyle, A. J. 126 Carpenter, Joseph Estlin 126, 139 Chamberlain, H. S. 52 Champneys, Arthur C. 81–​2 Charles, R. H. 126, 149n Chesterton, G. K. 72 Clifford, John 11 Conan Doyle, A. 97 Constructive Quarterly 90 Curtis, W. A. 133, 134, 150n Davidson, Randall T. 26–​8, 36, 49, 72, 84, 86, 124, 140, 147n; and Kikuyu 49; and Serbia 72 Dearmer, Mabel 69 Dearmer, Percy 69 Deissmann, Adolf 47, 92, 99–​100, 136, 140 Dobschütz, Ernst von 83, 87, 88–​90, 91, 92–​3, 102n, 136 Einstein, Albert 130 Eucken, Rudolf 108, 136 Fanon, Frantz 40 Farnell, Lewis Richard 151 Ferriss, Lorna 69 Figgis, J. N. 62n, 82 Foakes-​Jackson, F. F. 51, 66–​7, 87, 104n Foerster, F. W. 108 Forbes, Nevill 68–​9; and Serbia 68–​9 Frodsham, George 55

172

172  Index Fussell, Paul 69 Fynes-​Clinton, Henry Joy 69, 72, 75 Gellner, Ernest 23 German militarism 52–​9, 76, 81–​3, 90–​91, 92, 98, 132–​3; and liberal theology 81–​7, 98; and Troeltsch 132–​3 Glotz, Peter 40 Gollancz, Isaac 108 Gore, Charles 14, 49, 84 Haeckel, Ernst 75 Hammond, Joseph 8, 16–​17 Hardie, Keir 11 Harnack, Adolf von 35–​6, 37, 40–​41, 42, 47–​9, 64n, 108, 138, 153n; and 1914 47–​9 Haussleiter, Gottlob 53 Havel, Václav 36 Headlam, Arthur Cayley 134, 151n Henderson, Kenneth Thorne 145 Henson, Herbert Hensley 98–​9 Herrmann, Wilhelm 53, 91 Hicks, Edward Lee 6–​7 Hobsbawn, Eric 23, 24 Hobson, J. A. 5, 11 Holland, Henry Scott 6, 54 Hoskyns, Edwyn 100, 104 Hügel, Friedrich von 124–​6; and Kemp Smith 128–​9, 131–​3, 134–​5, 136, 139, 143–​5, 149n; and Troeltsch 124–​5, 127, 132–​3, 139–​40, 141, 146, 148n, 153n; and Webb 125–​6, 127, 129–​30, 133–​4, 141–​4 Imperial War Relief Fund Universities’ Committee 136–​8 Inge, W. R. 24, 137, 152n, 153n Iredale, Eleanora 137, 152n Islam 75–​6 Jacks, L. P. 134, 151n Jackson, Henry Latimer 51, 67, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92–​3, 103n Jahn, Gustav 90 James, M. R. 54 Japan 63n Jatho, Karl 58, 64n Jülicher, Adolf 90 Kemp Smith, Norman 127–​8; and von Hügel 128–​9, 131–​3, 134–​5, 143–​5, 149n

Kennaway, John 10 Kenyon, Frederic 106, 107, 115–​16, 119n Keynes, J. M. 122n Keyserling, Hermann von 39, 41 Kikuyu Missionary Conference (1913) 2, 49–​50, 57 Kipling, Rudyard 14, 21n Kitchen, G. W. 7 Kitchener, Herbert 5, 6 Knox-​Little, W. J. 9 Kosovo Day (1916) see Serbia Laffan, R. G. D. 68 Lambeth Conference (1920) 77 Leathes, Stanley 16 Leuven University Library 47, 54 Lewis, Henrietta Stakesby 9 liberal theology 81–​105 Lichnowsky Memorandum 109, 111, 115, 120n Lipton, Thomas 69 Lloyd George, David 68 Lock, Walter 139, 151n Loisy, A. F. 125–​7 London Society for the Study of Religion 133–​4 London University Press 142–​5, 154 Loofs, Friedrich 83, 90, 91, 93–​4, 95–​6, 97, 102n, 105n, 110 Lowry, Somerset Corry 13 Lyttleton, Edward 56 Macan, Reginald Walter 139, 141, 142, 153n Mackay, H. F. B. 67–​8 Mackintosh, H. R. 91–​2, 133, 134, 145–​6 Mafeking, Relief of 5 Manchester Transvaal Peace Committee 6 Manifesto of the Ninety-​Three Intellectuals see ‘An die Kulturwelt’ Marks, Alfred 11 Martin, Alexander 133, 134, 151n Mason, A. J. 13–​14, 17 Mijatović, Čedomilj 73 Mirbt, Carl 53 Moberley, R. C. 11–​12 Morley, John 11 Morrison, W. D. 145 Mozley, J. K. 97–​8 Murray, Gilbert 89 Murrell, W. S. 143–​5

173

Index 173 nationalism 15–​17, 23–​46; ethics of 37–​41; in 1914 34–​7 Nietzsche, Friedrich 52 Nolloth, Charles Frederick 139, 153n Notre Dame de Paris, bombing of 54 Orthodoxy 1, 2, 65–​80; Anglican and Eastern Churches’ Association 69–​70, 73 Ottoman Empire 54, 65, 71 Oxford Summer School in Theology 124–​5 Paget, Louise 69 Paget, Ralph 69 Paterson, W. P. 133, 134, 150n Pavlović, Dmitrije 69 propaganda 47–​9 Pullan, Leighton 3, 51, 57–​9, 65–​6, 80n, 83; and Germany 51, 57–​9, 83; and Orthodoxy 73–​6, 80n; and Serbia 65–​6 Rade, Martin 90, 108 Rashdall, Hastings 58, 123, 126 Renan, Ernest 24, 35 Rheims Cathedral 53 Rhodes, Cecil 18 Richter, Julius 53 Riley, Athelstan 69 Roberts, Frederick 5 Robinson, J. Armitage 7–​8, 11, 15, 86, 88, 96 Ropes, James Hardy 88–​9 Ross, Elizabeth 69 Sanday, William 3, 48, 53, 58, 63n, 66, 83–​7, 89–​98, 103n, 115–​6; British Academy Lecture 106–​12; conversion to liberalism 83; and von Dobschütz 83, 87, 88–​90, 91, 92–​3; and Loofs 83, 90, 91, 93–​4, 95–​6, 97, 105n; In View of the End 97–​8; The Meaning of the War for Germany 90–​91, 93–​4, 95, 96, 97, 98 Scheler, Max 35 Schieder, Theodor 39–​40 Schlatter, Adolf von 47 Schreiner, Olive 9 Schreiner, W. P. 9 Schweitzer, Albert 83, 85, 95, 130 Seeberg, Reinhold 34–​5, 47

Selbie, W. B. 87, 137, 138, 139, 152n Serbia 2–​5, 65–​80; Kosovo Day (1916) 72–​3, 74–​5 Serbian Relief Fund 69–​70 Seton-​Watson, R. W. 72 Sherrington, C. S. 3, 98, 121n; and Troeltsch 113–​19, 132–​3 South African War 1, 5–​22; and Empire 10–​14; and nationalism 15–​17; and race 5–​7, 18 Stalin, Joseph 23 Stanton, V. H. 48 Stewart, J. A. 112, 115 Stobart, Mabel St Clair 69 Stock, Eugene 54 Streeter, B. H. 83 Stromberg, Roland 35 Strong, T. B. 50 Student Christian Movement Swanwick Conference 127–​9, 133 Swete, H. B. 54 Synthetic Society 125, 148n Tatlow, Tissington 129, 149n Temple, William 137, 152n Teutonism see German militarism Theal, George McCall 9 Traub, Gottfried 58, 64n Treitschke, Heinrich von 52 Troeltsch, Ernst 3, 4, 34–​5, 37, 51, 59, 106, 111–​12, 119n, 150n; Die Absolutheit des Christentums 139–​40, 142; Christian Thought 4, 123, 141–​6, 152n; death of 136–​8; invitation to England (1909) 124–​7; Der Historismus und seine Probleme 123, 145; and von Hügel 132–​3, 153n; invitation to England (1921–​2) 127–​35; invitation to London Society for the Study of Religion 133–​4; and Sherrington 113–​15, 116–​7, 132–​3; and Swanwick Conference 127–​9 Turkey see Ottoman Empire Turner, C. H. 134n, 151n Tyrrell, George 124 Unwin, Stanley 152n Velimirović, Nicolaj 70–​73, 75, 76, 78n; and England 70–​73 Venabes, George 17 Votaw, C. W. 100–​101

174

174  Index Ward, Mary Augusta (Mrs Humphry) 58 Warren, Herbert 115 Webb, C. C. J. 123, 125, 131, 136, 147n, 148n; and von Hügel 125–​6, 127, 129–​30, 133–​4, 136, 141–​4; and Troeltsch’s Oxford lecture 138–​40 Weber, Max 28–​9, 118 Welldon, J. E. C. 153n

Westcott, Brooke Foss 15–​16 Weston, Frank 49–​50, 103n Wilberforce, Albert 16 Wilson, James Maurice 10, 52–​3 Winnington-​Ingram, Arthur Foley 43n Wobbermin, Georg 53 Wood, Charles (Lord Halifax) 56–​7 World Missionary Conference (1910) 48