ATHLETICS.
AN Atm rican critic of our institutions is said to have dec!ared that it would be absolutely impossible for any politician on the other side of the Atlantic to be con- *idered seriously if it were known that he played cricket or kiseball or golf, or was an ardent votary of any other form of athletics. The party managers, he declared, would never nominate for the Presidency an open defender of
*ports and games, because they would know that the people would refuse to vote for a candidate of whom it could be said that he spent his time in such frivolous pursuits. The Americans were in the main a serious and a business people, mid they wanted a man to lead them who made better use of his time than kicking or hitting a ball about. The English ideal is, of course, just the reverse of this. We never feel a politician to be quite complete unless he is known to sympathise with outdoor pursuits and be proficient in some one of them. Mr. Gladstone's reputation was saved by it being known that he was a skilful wielder of the axe, but it is not too much to say that if he had been an enthusiastic golf - player even his popularity would have been enhanced. In that case Scotland would not have returned a single Tory. All classes like to feel that their political heroes have something of the " sports- man " in them. It brings the hero nearer, and makes him seem more human. Besides, when people are keen and eager about a subject they are pleased to think that those they like are also keen and eager about the same thing. Bat the British public like athletics, and there- fore they look for a sympathetic attitude towards athletics in their leaders. But participation alone makes sympathy effective, and therefore they like their statesmen to play as well as approve.
Which is the best attitude, that of the American—granted that it is really the American attitude, on which we cannot pro- nounce an opinion—or that of the English public ? In our opinion that of the English. We believe firmly that ordinary men are healthier in mind and in body when they take a reasonable amount of physical exercise, and also when they make that physical exercise not a dead thing—a mere "gymnasium grind "—but enliven it by the introduction of chance and the exercise of skill ; turn it, in other words, from an exercise into a game. Bat what is good for men in general is good for statesmen, and therefore we may feel satisfied that our people are right when they like to see the politicians practising and encouraging athletics. No doubt there is in theory something in the American ideal. One may draw a very touching picture of the great statesman wedded to his country who spends long nights as well as long days thinking only of his fellow men. His little grandson tries to woo him from the Blue-books by " throwing-in " a ball so badly that it bounds through the library window — the practice-nets are pitched on the Abbey lawn—hits a red de- spatch-box, and gives him the excuse for shouting, "I say, grandfather, would you mind shying us that ball ? " But the great man only pauses to smile a kindly smile, and in another moment is tracing a new Sehomburgk line with a violet pencil, or casting up a column of figures as long as one's arm. As we have said, the picture of this tireless brain grinding out day and night like a glorious and perennial sausage-machine some good for its country is splendid ; but then, unfor- tunately, it is necessarily false. Be your Prime Minister or President never so virtuous and patriotic, he is bound occasionally to seek relaxation, and seek it he will. It is then only a choice of recreations. But if we come down to this, most assuredly the healthy outdoor pastimes are for the majority of vigorous men better than the stuffier forms of relaxation indulged in by people who are not athletic. Depend upon it, the ordinary man is healthier and happier, and so in better trim for doing the work of the State, if he is able to take athletic exercise than if he is not. In other words, the country is safer in the hands of a man who is something of an athlete than of one who is not. Of course there are exceptional men who can keep all their youth and vigour of mind without ever striking a ball or riding a horse or a bicycle, but these rare examples need not be discussed. They are not numerous enough to make it necessary to modify the opinion we have just expressed.
But though we think indulgence in open-air recreation an exeplipnt thine for all men, statesmen included, we are by no means blind to the objections that may be raised against the over-doing of athletics, especially at the Universities. Mr. Balfour, in his interesting little speech to the Conservative Athletic Clubs, made on Saturday last, gave a spirited general defence of athletics, and declared that if they were open to abuse so was every human institution. We agree; but at the same time it is only right that these abuses should be pointed out. As Mr. Balfour would doubtless be the first to admit, the cure for such abuses is their examination in the light of public opinion. We cannot doubt that there is truth in a complaint already made in these columns connected with the higher academic work. The average mental work done at the Universities is no doubt higher than ever before, just as is the average physical work in the boats and on the running-path. Again, the modern University athlete almost always reads steadily and well, while the scholar who does not take exercise in plenty is very rare. That is of course very satisfactory. What is not satisfactory is the decline of that ardour for study which was once fairly common, both in Oxford and Cambridge. Plenty of people do very well indeed, and show great ability and diligence, but fewer than formerly throw themselves into the arms of learning with the true feel- ing of the scholar. Passion seems to have passed away from the reading man. It is to be feared that the undue prominence given to athletics at school and college to some extent accounts for this. A youth has only a certain amount of the true ardour of mind to bestow. If he throws it into football or cricket he has none to spare for " unsphering" Plato, or for grasping the great conceptions of astronomy or the higher mathematics. Our quarrel with the sports of school and college is that they intercept something of what is most vital and most vitalising in the youth's mind before he gets to his real work. They take the "snap" out of him, and though he may bring a docile and well-balanced mind to his studies, he does not bring one which has in it anything of the fine frenzy of the poet. Of course, it is only to ten or a dozen men a year that this applies. The rest, we gladly admit, are far better for throwing themselves heartily into sports and games. Still, it is as well to remember that athletics over-indulged in may spoil great scholars even while they are helping moderate ones. In later life we need not, however, dread the effects of athletics. The politician, the lawyer, the man of business, will never let his career be spoilt by games. There is little fear of his turning into them an ardour which is wanted elsewhere. He will never to cricket give up what was meant for the Bank.' For these, and for the middle-aged in general, athletics are pare good. They lighten the burden of life, they make men healthy and content, —in a word, they slacken the bent bow, and so prevent its de. struction. Athletics outside the Universities need no apology. The danger in London is not of too much but of too little.
Previous page
