^{page 216 note 1} In Grant Allen's perceptive novel Babylon (London, 1885) I, pp. 25–26Google Scholar both Marx' and Weber's theses were stated. One character remarks to another in an episode set in an American farm community dominated by a very repressive type of Puritan sect, “Hop-kinite Baptists”. “What do those varmers all 'ere do? …Why, they buy a bit 'o land, an' work, an' slave thesselves an' their missuses, all their lives long, what vor? To raise pork and corn on. What vor again? To buy more land; to raise more corn an' bacon; and so on, world without end, amen, for ever an' ever,”

^{page 217 note 1} Hobson, J. A., The Social Problem, Life and Work (New York, 1901), p. 27.Google Scholar Cf. Marx's conclusion in his “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts” written in 1844. “Political economy, the science of wealth, is therefore, at the same time, the science of renunciation, of privation and of saving.…The science of a marvelous industry is at the same time the science of asceticism. Its true ideal is the ascetic but usurious miser and the ascetic but productive slave.…Thus, despite its worldly and pleasure-seeking appearance, it is a truly moral science, the most moral of all sciences. Its principal thesis is the renunciation of life and of human needs. The Jess you eat, drink, buy books, go to the theatre or to balls, or to the public house, and the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc. the more you will be able to save and the greater will become your treasure which neither moth nor rust will corrupt- your capital. The less you are, the less you express your life, the more you have, the greater is your alienated being. Everything which the economist takes from you in the way of life and humanity, he restores to you in the form of money and wealth. And everything which you are unable to do, your money can do for you…” Marx, Karl, Early Writings, trans, and ed. Bottomore, T. B. (London, 1963), p. 171.Google Scholar Bottomore's italics. The translation is also available in Fromm, Eric, Marx's Concept of Man (New York, 1961).Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 1} Helps, Arthur, Life and Labour of Mr. Brassey (London, 1872).Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 2} Self-Help (1859), Character (1871), Thrift (1875), and Duty (1887).

^{page 218 note 3} Fawcett, Henry, Manual of Political Economy (London and Cambridge, 1863)Google Scholar, The Economic Position of the British Labourer (London and Cambridge, 1865), Pauperism: Its Causes and Remedies, and with Fawcett, Millicent Garrett, Essays and Lectures on Social and Political Subjects (London, 1872).Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} Mill, J. S., Dissertations and Discussions (London, 1859), I, pp. 416–17.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 2} Mill, J. S., Three Essays on Religion: Nature, Utility of Religion (London, 1874), p. 46.Google Scholar “The truth is that there is hardly a single point of excellence belonging to human character which is not decidedly repugnant to the untutored feelings of human nature.” Ibid. “This brief survey is amply sufficient to prove that the duty of man is the same in respect to his own nature as in respect to the nature of all other things, namely, not to follow but to amend it.” Ibid., p. 54.

^{page 220 note 1} Ibid., pp. 56–57.

^{page 220 note 2} Ibid., p. 50. Similarly Arnold recognized the universal problem of self-discipline in relation to the attainment of a higher civilization. As a discipline, he believed Puritanism to be invaluable. Mankind could not afford to discard it. Restraint, self-control, consciousness of evil and sin were indispensable to man in his pursuit of total perfection. Puritanism gave “the indispensable basis of conduct and self-control, the platform upon which the perfection aimed at by Greece can come into bloom.” (Culture, and Anarchy, , pp. 96Google Scholar, xxxvi, 92, ch. IV). But England had been wrong in making Puritan Hebraism primary and Hellenism secondary. Hellenism was needed to rectify the Puritan distortion of the sense of conduct, its “fixed law of doing.” Hellenism gave “spontaneity of consciousness” which tended “continually to enlarge our whole law of doing.” (Ibid., p. 105.)

^{page 221 note 1} See below, p. 246.

^{page 221 note 2} Mill “restricted the domain of inexorable law to the physical necessities to which production is subject and emphasized for all the rest, all institutions in particular, that they are man-made, changeable, malleable, and ‘progressive’. There was no invariable natural order of things social, and economic necessity meant to him largely necessity in regard to a given state of the changing institutional frame. However much he glorified his age in other respects, the actual state of society he did not consider as either ideal or permanent.” Schumpeter, Joseph H., History of Economic Analysis (New York, 1954), pp. 537, 531.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 3} CC, Hansard, 4 April, 1870, p. 1200.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 4} Cairnes, J. E., Essays in Political Economy, Theoretical and Applied (London, 1873), pp. 240–41.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 5} Professor Cairnes on Comte, M. and Political Economy, in: Fortnightly Review, N.S., VII, (1870), p. 56.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 1} Political Economy Club (London, 1881), III, Part VII, p. 86.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 2} Mummery, A. F. and Hobson, J. A., The Physiology of Industry: Being an Exposure of Certain Fallacies in Existing Theories of Economics (London, 1889), pp. iii–iv.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 1} Mannheim, Karl, Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction, trans. Shils, Edward (New York, 1940), pp. 53, 55.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} See Character (London, 1871)Google Scholar, Ch. VI, “Self-Control”.

^{page 224 note 2} Mannheim, op. cit., pp. 56–57.

^{page 224 note 3} Annan, N. G., Stephen, Leslie, His Thought and Character in Relation to his Time (London, 1951), p. 97.Google Scholar For the process of self-observation among the Chapham Sect, see Spring, David, “The Clapham Sect: Some Social and Political Aspects,” Victorian Studies, Vol. V, No. 1 (1961) pp. 36–42.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 1} Mannheim, op. cit., p. 55.

^{page 225 note 2} Jones, Louis C., The Clubs of the Georgian Rakes (New York, 1941), p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 1} Ibid., p. 10.

^{page 226 note 2} Quoted in Ogilvie, Vivian, The English Public School (London, 1957), p. 125.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 3} See Spring, David, “Earl Fitzwilliam and the Corn Laws,” American Historical Review, 1954 and his “The English Landed Estate in the Age of Coal and Iron: 1850–1880,” Journal of Economic History, Vol. XI (1951).Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 4} Self-Help (London, 1859)Google Scholar, Ch. 1.

^{page 226 note 5} “Gentlemen,” Magazine, Combill, (1862), pp. 327–42.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 1} Escott, T. H. S., England: Its People, Polity, and Pursuits (London, 1879), 11, pp. 55–57.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 2} E. C. Mack, op. cit., p. 250.

^{page 227 note 3} Athenaeum, , 17 Nov., 1860, p. 667.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 4} Staunton, Harold, The Great Public Schools of England (London, 1865), p. xvii.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 1} “For only when the motives of individuals are seen in their significance for a more comprehensive functioning system does motive interpretation achieve a truly sociological level.” Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. Henderson, A. M. and Parsons, Talcott, ed. with an Introduction by Talcott Parsons (New York, 1947), P. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 2} If detected, infractions of the moral order could well mean social ostracism for a gentleman. “The respect for moral character is a distinguishing mark of good society in this country as compared with that of the continent. No rank, no wealth, no celebrity will induce a well-bred English lady to admit to her drawing-room a man or woman whose character is known to be bad. Society is a severe censor, pitiless and remorseless. The woman who has once fallen, the man who has once lost his honour, may repent for years; good society shuts its door on them once and for ever.” Anonymous, , The Habits of Good Society (London, 1859), p. 67.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 3} O'Rell, op. cit., p. 32.

^{page 228 note 4} Tess, (London, 1952), pp. 390Google Scholar, 386, 411, 420. See also the character of Tom Gradgrind in Hard Times, pp. 174, 225, 228.

^{page 229 note 1} Thomas, Keith, “The Double Standard,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 04 1959, p. 207.Google Scholar On the subject of immature sexuality there is an excellent discussion in Rieff, Philip, Freud: The Mind of the Moralist (New York, 1961), Ch. v.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 230 note 1} Mayhew, Henry, London Labour and the London Poor (London, 1862), IV, p. 258.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 2} “Prostitution is as inseparable from our present marriage customs as the shadow from the substance. They are two sides of the same shield.” Westminister Review, Nov. 1868, p. 365. Ellis, Havelock, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, VI, Ch. VII, “Prostitution”, pp. 254Google Scholar, 315–16. MrsEllis, Havelock, James Hinton, A Sketch (London, 1918).Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 3} “The Girl of the Future,” Universal Review, 1890, p. 58.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 4} Op. cit., 11, pp. 229–30.

^{page 231 note 1} Functions (1862 ed.), p. 102.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 2} Acton, op. cit. (1862 ed.), p. 102. Acton admitted that “all that we have read and heard tends to prove that a reciprocity of this sexual desire is, to a great extent, necessary to excite the male…” (1857 ed.), p. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 3} Ellis, op. cit., Ill, p. 164.

^{page 231 note 4} Acton, op. cit., p. 102. “That a mucous fluid is sometimes formed in coition from the internal organs and vagina is undoubted, but this only happens in lascivious women, or such as live luxuriously.” “Generation,” Rees' Cyclopaedia. Cited in H. Ellis, op. cit., III, p. 157.

^{page 232 note 1} Acton, op. cit., pp. 102–03. For Acton's case history of the ideal wife, see op. cit., p. 103.

^{page 232 note 2} Functions, (1862 ed.), p. 105.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 3} Saturday Review, 1860, pp. 106–07.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 4} Anonymous, , Modem Etiquette in Private and Public Including Society at Large (London, n. d.), p. 67.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 5} Saturday Review, 12 Jan., 1867, p. 48.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 6} Foster, J. Edgar, The Divorce Court (Ipswich, 1891), p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 7} Habituating themselves to a high standard of comfortable living became part of the upper middle-class way of life during the nineteenth century. During the last quarter of the century upper middle-class families were confronted with the choice of curtailing either their comfort or the size of their families. For a detailed study of the relationship between family limitation and the desire to maintain a high standard of living, see J. A. Banks, op. cit.

^{page 233 note 1} Saturday Review of January 1867, p. 48.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 2} Quarterly Review, Vol. XXV, p. 111.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 3} Saturday Review, 12 June 1869, p. 770.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 4} Quarterley Review, Vol. XXVII, p. 474.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 5} Caird, Mona, “Marriage,” Westminister Review, Aug. 1888, p. 197.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 6} Saturday Review, 12 June 1869, p. 770.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 7} Black, William, In Silk Attire (London, 1869).Google Scholar Cited in Thomson, Patricia, The Victorian Heroine. A Changing Ideal, 1837–1873 (London, New York, and Toronto, 1956), pp. 157–58.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 8} Stephen, Barbara, Emily Davies and Girton College (London, 1927), p. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 9} Pearl, op. cit., pp. 96–97.

^{page 233 note 10} Mayhew, op. cit., pp. 215–16.

^{page 233 note 11} Westminster Review, July 1864, pp. 40–41.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 1} Greg, W. R., “Why Are Women Redundant?”, Social and Libery Judgments (2nd ed., London, 1869), pp. 304–06.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 2} Anonymous, , The Girl of the Period (London, 1868), pp. 4–8.Google Scholar The essay was reprinted from the Saturday Review. A copy in the Bodleian library, Oxford, boasts a circulation of thirty-five thousand.

^{page 234 note 3} Pearl, op. cit., pp. 191–93.

^{page 235 note 1} For an excellent introduction, see Collingswood, R. G., Ruskin's Philosophy (Kendal, 1922)Google Scholar; Mill, J. S., A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, 2 vols. (6th ed., London, 1865)Google Scholar; Mill, J. S., Dissertations and Discussions (London, 1859) IIGoogle Scholar, “Michelet's History of France”. Since Mill's thinking was dialectical (see the brilliant formulation in ch. 2 of On Liberty (1859)), (2) in the text stands contradicted as far as Mill is concerned, but remained true for the Respectable frame of mind. For attempts to apply the method to the writing of history, see Buckle, Henry Thomas, History of Civilization in England, 2 vols. (London, 1857–1861)Google Scholar, and Cairnes, John Elliot, The Slave Power (London, 1862).Google Scholar For a bibliography of the method as it was formulated as the a priori and deductive method in classical political economy, see IRSH, Vol. VIII (1963), Pt. 1, p. 27, fn. 3. See also W. E. Houghton, op. cit., ch. 5.

^{page 235 note 2} Mercier, Charles, “Vice, Crime, and Insanity,” ed. Allbut, Thomas Clifford, A System of Medicine (London and New York, 1899), VIII, pp. 248–294.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 1} Cf. Marx's critique of the conversion of money into virtue as the negation of individuality. “That which exists for me through the medium of money, that which I can pay for (i.e., which money can buy), that I am, the possessor of the money. My own power is as great as the power of money. The properties of money are my own (the possessor's) properties and faculties. What I am and can do is, therefore, not at all determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy the most beautiful woman for myself. Consequently, I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness, its power to repel, is annulled by money. As an individual I am lame, but money provides me with twenty-four legs. Therefore, I am not lame. I am detestable, dishonorable, unscrupulous and stupid but money is honored and so also is its possessor. Money is the highest good, and so its possessor is good. Besides, money saves me the trouble of being dishonest; therefore, I am presumed honest. I am stupid, but since money is the real mind of all things, how should its possessor be stupid? Moreover, he can buy talented people for himself, and is not he who has power over the talented more talented than they? I who can have, through the power of money, everything for which the human heart longs, do I not possess all human abilities? Does not my money, therefore, transform all my incapacities into their opposites?” (T. B. Bottomore, op. cit., p. 191.)

^{page 236 note 2} Mercier, op. cit., pp. 264–68.

^{page 237 note 1} Hack Tuke, op. cit., pp. 21, 50, 58, 68, 124, 126.

^{page 237 note 2} Deutsch, Helene, The Psychology of Women (New York, 1947), I, p. 196.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 1} Mercier, , op. at., p. 249.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 2} Ibid., p. 254.

^{page 238 note 3} Ibid., p. 259.

^{page 239 note 1} Ibid., p. 260.

^{page 239 note 2} Ibid., pp. 265, 268.

^{page 239 note 3} “The test of insanity is not the relative strength of one motive or another in the mind of the actor, but whether his conduct is or is not adjusted to his circumstances; and, if it be not, whether the maladjustment is corrigible. If it be corrigible, the process of adjustment is normal, and he is sane; if it be incorrigible, the process of adjustment is disordered, and disorder of the process of adjusting self to circumstances in insanity…by conduct alone, can insanity be estimated.” Ibid., p. 274.

^{page 240 note 1} Huggard, William R., “Definition of Insanity,” Journal of Mental Science, XXIX, (Jan. 1884) pp. 475–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and his “The Standard of Insanity,” British Medical Journal, 28 Nov., 1885, p. 1013.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 2} Mill, J. S., On Liberty, ed. McCallum, R. B. (Oxford, 1946), p. 61.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 3} The economic character of the Respectable Economic System has changed profoundly. As an emphasis upon saving has been exactly reversed to an emphasis upon spending, so the indoctrination to save money and sexual energy has changed to the indoctrination to spend both. The morality of Acton and Mercier who correlated thrift and continence has given way to Keynesian economics and the sexual morality of the Kinsey Report. As Lionel Trilling has pointed out, the authors of the Kinsey Report conceive of sexuality primarily in behavioristic terms, only the physical side of sex being considered, and confine their interest in it insofar as it lends itself to quantitative measurement. They are partisans of a good sexuality by which they mean frequency. In the words of the Report: “It seems safe to assume that daily orgasm would be within the capacity of the average male and that the more than daily rates which have been observed for some primates could be matched by a larger portion of the human population if sexual activity were unrestricted.” (Quoted in Trilling, Lionel, The Liberal Imagination, Essays on Literature and Society (London, 1955), pp. 230–42).Google Scholar Fromm has described post-World War I society in terms which Mercier has defined as characteristic of insanity. Fromm writes: “Not to postpone the satisfaction of any desire became the main tendency in the sphere of sex as well as in that of all material consumption.” The Victorian fear of the “appetites” has been succeeded by the post-Victorian belief that “the world is one great object of our appetite.” (Fromm, Eric, The Art of Loving (London, 1957), pp. 91–2, 87Google Scholar). Chastity has given way to “sexiness”, saving to spending.

^{page 241 note 1} Mill, J. S., Dissertations, p. 354.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 2} Ibid., p. 353.

^{page 241 note 3} Marx, Karl, Capital (Chicago, 1906), I, p. 668.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 4} Arnold, M., Culture and Anarchy, p. 109.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 1} Ellis, Havelock, The New Spirit (London, 1890), pp. 110–11.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 2} Clarke, William, Walt Whitman (London and New York, 1893), p. 70.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 3} Symonds, J. A., Studies of the Greek Poets (London, 1873), pp. 416–17.Google Scholar See also his Studies of Greek Poets Second Series (London, 1876).Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 1} Fromm, Eric, The Art of Loving (London, 1957), pp. 91–92, 87.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 1} I follow Eric Fromm's studies in characterology here. Especially his Fear of Freedom (London, 1952)Google Scholar, “Appendix: Character and the Social Process”.

^{page 244 note 2} Ibid., p. 239.

^{page 244 note 3} Ibid., p. 239. Grant Allen, the greatest of the late-Victorian rebels, made the point:“‘What an extraordinary insight into character you have!’ I cried. ‘You seem to divine what everybody’s action will be under given circumstances.'…‘Character determines action,’ she said… ‘That is the secret of the great novelists… I have something of the novelist’s gift; I apply the same method to the real life of the people around me. I try to throw myself into the person of others, and to feel how their character will compel them to act in each set of circumstances to which they may expose themselves.” Wade, Hilda (London, 1900), pp. 113–14.Google Scholar See also his Daughter, Dumaresq's (London, 1891)Google Scholar for a perceptive novel about hysteria and psychosomatic blindness.

^{page 245 note 1} See Cominos, Peter T., The Late Victorian Revolt, 1859–1895 (unpublished D. Phil. thesis, Oxford, 1959,) pp. 369–455Google Scholar, 583–630.

^{page 245 note 2} Fromm, Art, p. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 3} Mill, J. S., Subjection, p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 1} For a discussion of the later Freud's tripartite anatomy of the psyche in conflict and balance, see Philip Rieff, op. cit., pp. 62–65.

^{page 246 note 2} “…their suppression, because of the intensity of sexual desires, not only effects the sexual sphere but also weakens the person's courage for spontaneous expression in all other spheres.” Fromm, Eric, Fear of Freedom (London, 1952), pp. 210–11.Google Scholar “One premise for this spontaneity is the acceptance of the total personality and elimination of the split between “reason” and “nature”; for only if man does not repress essential parts of his self, only if he has become transparent to himself, and only if the different spheres of life have reached a fundamental integration, is spontaneous activity possible.” Ibid., pp. 222–23.

^{page 246 note 3} “The lost of the self has increaed the necessity to conform, for it results in a profound doubt of one's own identity…The lost of identity then makes it still more imperative to conform; it means that one can be sure of oneself only if one lives up to the expectations of others. If we do not live up to this picture we not only risk disapproval and increased isolation, but we risk losing the identity of our personality, which means jeopardizing sanity.” Ibid., p. 219.

^{page 247 note 1} “The proposition that all pleasant things are right is untrue”, wrote John Morley, “but is is certainly not so radically untrue as the more popular proposition that most pleasant things are wrong.” “From our school-days upwards”, Morley wrote, “we are taught, first by masters and discipline, and afterwards by the temper which we find prevailing in the world outside, that if anything is pleasant it is sure to prove to be wrong. It is attempted to represent even cricket and football either in their utilitarian aspects, as good for the body, just as grammar is good for the soul, than as means of pleasure and enjoyment. The notion that pleasure as pleasure is a desirable thing is repugnant to the heart of the common place pedagogue.” The principle that all pleasure was wrong was closely related to the business of getting on in the world. “Of the many extraordinary notions which constitute the distinctive characteristics of an average Englishman or Scotsman, none is more wonderful or more inveterate than the conviction that all pleasure is more or less a waste of time.” Pleasure was looked upon as at “most a necessary evil, incident to our fallen race.” However, as religion countenanced, less and less, the belief that pleasurable experiences were incompatible with the discharge of religious duties and the salvation of the soul, the purely secular belief in success countenanced more and more openly the declining “rigid ascetic theory of life”. “Just as we have ceased to believe that pleasure is fatal to salvation, people start to persuade us that it is fatal to getting on in the world.” Ambitious men in earnest about making their way in the world thought every diversion, “as the converted saints used to”, regardless of its character, a “frivolity” and a “stupid self-indulgence”. Anonymous, (John Morley), Studies in Conduct, Short Essays From the Saturday Review (London, 1867), pp. 1–9.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 2} Ibid., pp. 8–10,

^{page 248 note 1} Brain, : A Journal of Neurology, XIX (1896), pp. 406–07.Google Scholar “…Freud… declared that the degree of sexual repression assumed to be normal in his time was excessive, and actually causing neurosis.” E. Fromm, Freud's Mission, p. 100. In many respects Freud's thought incorporates current Respectable notions about the nature of man. See E. Fromm, op. cit., Cf. Rieff, op. cit.

^{page 248 note 2} Cominos, op. cit.

^{page 248 note 3} Fromm, Art, p. 20,Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 1} Mill, J. S., Subjection, pp. 79–81.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 2} As a social critic Allen was prolific, See especially his, Falling in Love and Other Essays (London, 1889)Google Scholar, The Woman Who Did (London, 1895)Google Scholar, and “Natural Inequality,” ed. Carpenter, Edward, Forecasts of the Coming Century (London and Manchester, 1897)Google Scholar, and Clodd, Edward, Allen, Grant, a Memoir (London, 1900)Google Scholar for a complete bibliography of his many books. There are literally hundreds of his essays scattered throughout the periodicals of the eighties and nineties.

^{page 249 note 3} “The Quintessence of Ibsenism,” Major Critical Essays (London, 1948), p. 121.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 4} Blodgett, Harold William, Walt Whitman in England (London, 1954).Google Scholar For a bibliography of “Whitmania” in England, see P. T. Cominos, op. cit., pp. 654–55.

^{page 249 note 5} Franc, Miriam Alice, Ibsen in England (Boston, 1919).Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 1} Cominos, op. cit., pp. 630–33.

^{page 250 note 2} Halevy, E., trans. Watkin, E. I., Imperialism and the Rise of Labour (London, 1951), p. 258.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 3} Semmel, Bernard, Imperialism and Social Reform. English Social-Imperial Thought, 1895–1914 (Cambridge, 1960), p. 24.Google Scholar I should like to acknowledge my gratitude to Professor J. H. Hexter for his critical comments.