Invention: The Master-key to Progress

by Bradley A. Fiske

Shortly after the fall of Napoleon, the Czar Alexander, with the emperor of Austria and the king of Prussia, invented the Holy Alliance. It was in pretense an alliance to advance the cause of religion, and to reduce to practice in political affairs the teachings of Christ; but it was in intention a league against the spread of the ideas embodied in the French Revolution. The League was not successful in the end, for the picture of liberty made in the minds of men was too brilliant and too deeply printed to be wiped out. One of the results of the Holy Alliance was the invention by the United States of the Monroe Doctrine which was made to prevent that intervention in affairs on the American continent which the proceedings of the Alliance foreshadowed.

Italy was very harshly treated by the Congress of Vienna, two of her largest provinces in the north being given to Austria, who forthwith proceeded then to try to control the entire peninsula. In 1820, a revolution broke out in Italy, but it was soon suppressed. Another broke out in 1830, simultaneous with that in France; and this was also suppressed. The third, in 1848, met a similar fate. But the revolutions in France were successful; the one of 1848 resulting in the formation of a republic. At the same time, a sympathetic revolution in Germany was in a measure successful also.

In Germany, the formation of the German Confederation in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna was the formation of a kind of political body that has never lasted long; for no political body has ever lasted long, except an actual and definite nation. The various components of the German Confederation were too loosely bound together. This invention, like others of mechanical machines, was not a practical invention because the machine invented was too easily thrown out of adjustment. The Customs Union was invented in 1828 to supply the necessary element of coherency. It was hardly adequate for its task, at the time; but it made the people think of national union; an idea that was finally developed in 1871.

In Russia, considerable progress was made from 1800 to 1850, though not so much as in the countries farther west. An adequate reason would seem to be that there were too few minds, in proportion to the entire population, that were able to conceive and develop the ideas that are needed to make progress.

During this half-century, while the names of many men stand out as having done constructive work in invention and discovery, and while many great statesmen existed, the names of three statesmen stand out more brightly than the rest: Pitt, Talleyrand and Metternich. Each had the mind to conceive, develop and produce; and each did conceive, develop and produce. Of the three, William Pitt was, according to almost any accepted standard by far the greatest, and Talleyrand was second. Without the force and guidance of such a mind as Pitt possessed and utilized, it is hard to estimate what would have been the rôle of England in the Napoleonic wars, and what would have been her fate. In the actual course of events, it was England that announced the "mate in four moves" to Napoleon at Trafalgar, and that finally checkmated him at Waterloo. True, Pitt died long before Waterloo; but the policy which he conceived and developed was the policy which was followed; and the influence of his mind lived in almost unabated strength after his poor, frail body had ceased to live.

Talleyrand seems to have been what I have asked permission to call an "opportunistic inventor"; quick to conceive, develop and produce plans for meeting difficult situations as they arose, but without any ultimate objective, or any moral or other principles of any kind. Metternich, on the other hand, though lacking the brilliancy of Talleyrand, exerted his talents devotedly to the interests of his country, as he saw them. But he failed to realize how deep the ideas of the French Revolution had been engraved in the minds of men, and finally saw the Machine of the Austrian Government almost destroyed in 1848. He himself was forced to flee; and the Emperor was forced to abdicate in favor of his nephew, who granted the people a Constitution, in order to save the Machine. In Prussia, affairs went almost as far as in Austria, though not nearly so far as in France. The Machine in Prussia was saved by the promise of the granting of a constitution.

The main ultimate political result of the agitations of all kinds during the half century 1800 to 1850, was the granting to greater numbers of people of a part in directing the affairs of State. In France, the whole Machine of Civilization had been menaced with destruction in the years just previous to 1800; but destruction had not resulted, and actual improvement had been begun by 1800, though in an experimental and tentative way. During the fifty years now under consideration, the idea conceived and developed in France spread to all other civilized countries; and in all those countries it exercised its benignant influence, especially in the new nation across the Atlantic, the United States of America. Reciprocally, the news of the formation of that republic, and the adoption of its Constitution in 1787, had exercised considerable influence in giving support to the idea of the people of France, although the United States of America was very far away indeed, and her experiment in government was as yet untried. Then, as the years went by, between 1800 and 1850, and as the American experiment became increasingly successful, and as the ocean steamships brought prompt and adequate information about all of its developments, the American idea joined with the French idea, to advance the cause of government by the people.

It may be pointed out here that the discoveries in the physical sciences and the utilization of those discoveries in the invention of material instruments and mechanisms were more fruitful in creations of a permanent and definite character than were the achievements of statesmen, generals, admirals and "opportunistic inventors" in general. The same remark is true of discoveries and inventions in systems of government, ethics and religion. These also have developed monuments of extraordinary permanency; witness, for instance, the inventions of the kingdom, of democracy and of the Buddhist, Shinto, Taoist, Jewish, Christian and Mohammedan religions. The distinctive feature in securing permanency seems to have been the intent to secure it. The sudden conception, development and production of a campaign, political maneuvre or business enterprise, seems to have produced a creature that was merely a temporary expedient, adapted only to meet emergencies that themselves were temporary.

This does not mean that the influence of these temporary expedients has not sometimes been great: it does not mean, for instance, that the influence of the victory at Salamis was not great. It does not mean to deny the plain fact that it has been the succession of the results of temporary expedients that has brought affairs to the condition in which they are today. It does mean, however, that the actual pieces of the existing Machine of Civilization are the permanent inventions which have been made; while the opportunistic inventions have in some cases prevented, and in other cases have furthered, the making of those inventions, and the incorporation of them in the Machine. The invention of printing, for instance, produced an actual part of the Machine; while the successful wars waged by civilized nations with the gun against savages, barbarians and peoples of a lower order of civilization, made possible the further development of printing, and its continual use in upbuilding the Machine. The use of the opportunistic inventions seems to have been in assisting the inventors of permanent creations and in directing the efforts of the operators of the Machine.

An analogue can be found in the case of the invention, development and operation of the smaller machines of every-day life: the inventor of each machine merely invents that machine; when he has done this his work is virtually finished. When his machine is put to work (say, an electric railroad) the operators carry on the various routine tasks; just as the president of a bank operates his bank, or the president of a nation administers the affairs of the nation. But there arise occasions when something goes wrong, when something besides supplying coal and oil and electricity is necessary for the successful running of the railroad, when something more than routine administration is required of the president of the bank, or the president of the nation. Then the ingenious and bright mechanic or electrician invents a practical scheme for circumventing the difficulty with the railroad; or Napoleon invents a campaign to save the French Republic.