The Cosmic Common Good
Religious Grounds for Ecological Ethics z
DANIEL P. SCHEID
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2016
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Portions of Chapter 2 appeared in Daniel P. Scheid’s “Common Good: Human, or Cosmic?” Journal of Religion & Society, Supplement Series 9: “The Greening of the Papacy,” edited by Ronald A. Simkins and John J. O’Keefe (2013): 5–15.
Portions of Chapters 2 and 9 appeared in Daniel P. Scheid’s “Catholic Common Good, Buddhist Interdependence, and the Practice of Interreligious Ecological Ethics,” Journal of Inter-Religious Studies 16 (2015): 72–80.
Portions of Chapters 5 and 6 appeared in Daniel P. Scheid’s “Expanding Catholic Ecological Ethics: Ecological Solidarity and Earth Rights,” in Religion, Economics, and Culture in Conflict and Conversation (College Theology Society Annual Volume 2010), eds. Laurie Cassidy and Maureen O’Connell (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2011), 196–216.
Lines in Chapter 8 from The Bhagavad Gita translated by Zaehner (1966) 469w from 1.1, 2.12, 2.7, 4.6–8, 5.18, 7.5–11, 9:3–5, 10:8, 10:32, 11:17–18. By permission of Oxford University Press (www.oup.com).
Lines in Chapter 8 from The Law Code of Manu translated by Olivelle (2009) 390w from 4.1, 5.28, 5.30, 5.38–39, 5.45–46, 5.48–49, 5.52, 5.53, 8:15, 8:21, 8.285–286, 10.83–84. By permission of Oxford University Press (www.oup.com).
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Scheid, Daniel P.
The cosmic common good : religious grounds for ecological ethics / Daniel P. Scheid. pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978–0–19–935943–1 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Human ecology—Religious aspects— Catholic Church. 2. Human ecology—Religious aspects. 3. Ecotheology. I. Title. BX1795.H82S33 2016 205′.691—dc23 2015016509
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
To Anna, in gratitude for making her home on this beautiful Earth with me, and for our beloved children Henry Daniel, Clare Susanna, and Eamon Patrick: may the cosmic common good shine more brightly in their lives as a result of the efforts our generation expends today.
Acknowledgments xi
Introduction xiii
1. The Cosmic Common Good as a Ground for Interreligious Ecological Ethics 1
I. Imperiled Earth and Religious Responses 1
II. Twofold Approach: Catholic Social Thought and Other Religious Traditions 5
III. Outline of Chapters 8
PART ONE: A Catholic Cosmic Common Good
2. A Catholic Cosmic Common Good: Overview and Prospects 15
I. The Common Good and Human Dignity in Catholic Social Thought 15
II. Catholic Social Thought and the Cosmic Common Good 23
III. Scientific Grounds for the Cosmic Common Good 25
IV. Theological Grounds for the Cosmic Common Good 30
V. Why a Cosmic Common Good? 32
VI. Features of a Catholic Cosmic Common Good 36
VII. Conclusion 43
3. Classical Sources for a Catholic Cosmic Common Good: Augustine and Thomas Aquinas 45
I. Introduction 45
II. A Fivefold Cosmic Common Good 46
III. Implications for a Catholic Cosmic Common Good 60
4. Thomas Berry and an Evolutionary Catholic Cosmic Common Good 64
I. Introduction 64
II. The Cosmic Story 66
III. The Threefold Nature of the Universe 73
IV. Implications for a Catholic Cosmic Common Good 79
5. Earth Solidarity 82
I. Solidarity in Catholic Social Thought 83
II. The Virtue of Solidarity 86
III. Solidarity Expanded: Earth Solidarity 91
IV. Dimensions of Earth Solidarity 93
V. Conclusion 99
6. Earth Rights 101
I. Rights in Catholic Social Thought 101
II. Rights Expanded: Justifications for Earth Rights 104
III. Earth Rights 113
IV. A Catholic Cosmic Common Good, Earth Solidarity, and Earth Rights: Conclusion 115
PART TWO: The Cosmic Common Good and Interreligious Ecological Ethics
7. Comparative Theology and Ecological Ethics 119
I. Overview of Comparative Theology 119
II. Comparative Ecological Ethics 123
8. Hindu Traditions: Dharmic Ecology 127
I. Dharma in Hindu Traditions 128
II. Dharmic Ecology: Theocentrism and the Intrinsic Dignity of Creatures 130
III. The Ātman (Self) and the Transmigration of Souls 134
IV. Common Good of Mother Earth 135
V. Dharmic Rituals as Embedded Ecology 137
VI. Ahiṃsā and Vegetarianism 138
VII. Implications for a Catholic Cosmic Common Good 142
9. Buddhist Traditions: Interdependence 145
I. Pratītyasamutpāda/Dependent Origination as a Cosmological Principle 146
II. Pratītyasamutpāda/Interdependence as an Ecological Principle: Thich Nhat Hanh 149
III. Pratītyasamutpāda/Interdependence as an Ecological Principle: Joanna Macy 154
IV. The Jeweled Net of Indra 156
V. Implications for a Catholic Cosmic Common Good 158
10. American Indian Traditions: Balance with All Our Relations 163
I. Indigenous Traditions and Systemic Violence 163
II. Four Features of American Indian Worldviews and Their Ecological Implications 165
III. The Lakota 168
IV. Lakota Spatiality as Implicit Critique of amer-european Temporality 171
V. Self-Critical Implications for a Catholic Cosmic Common Good 175
The Cosmic Common Good as a Ground for Interreligious Ecological Ethics
I. Imperiled Earth and Religious Responses
The Earth, “our common home,” is imperiled.1 With increasing clarity, we observe the extent and the variety of ways in which the systems on Earth that generate and maintain an unparalleled diversity of life are threatened. Indeed, their very viability has come into question. These challenges are both global and local: they must be understood as threats that affect the entire planet, such as climate change, ocean acidification, and diminishing biodiversity; yet the shape that these problems take also fluctuates dramatically according to local and concrete conditions. Climate change may bring droughts or increased flooding, loss of biodiversity occurs not only through loss of habitat but also through the incursion of invasive and non-local species, and air and water quality improves in some privileged locations even as the stress on ecosystems globally intensifies: the Earth upon which human existence depends is in distress.2 Indeed, no ethical issue encapsulates the increasingly interconnected contemporary world better than the ecological crisis. Over the course of the twentieth century, the world was slowly introduced to the possibility that human products and lifestyle choices could fundamentally alter the patterns of life for non-human creatures.3 In response, ecological awareness has blossomed, permeating world cultures. Countless works have outlined the various kinds of ecological threats that endanger the Earth and the precise factors and fluctuating conditions of these ecological threats, and many have proposed a wide array of possible solutions. This is no longer the province of specialized scientists but a concern that transcends and spans academic disciplines.4 We know something is wrong, and we are struggling to respond.
This book represents one response to this ecological crisis, rooted in the Catholic theological tradition but critically engaging other religious traditions as
well. Theological traditions have a pivotal role to play for two reasons. First, as many religious leaders have argued, the ecological crisis is also a moral crisis.5 Our recurrent inability to curb or even to address ecological threats like climate change is more than a policy failure, an economic conundrum, or a challenge to develop more advanced and sophisticated technology. It also represents a moral failure. Though science and politics play an important role, the proper response to imperiled Earth must include a renewed ethical vision. In my own Catholic tradition, recent popes have become ardent and vociferous proponents of environmental concern. In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis describes the ecological crisis as a “sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity” (119), and so we must penetrate “to the ethical and spiritual roots of environmental problems, which require that we look for solutions not only in technology but in a change of humanity; otherwise we would be dealing merely with symptoms” (9). We need a “broader vision of reality” (141) and a “renewal of humanity itself” (118). Therefore Francis calls for a “bold cultural revolution” (114), namely the development of a truly “ecological culture” that can provide “a lifestyle and a spirituality” that sees all reality as interconnected and thus might enable us to re-envision humanity’s proper role on Earth (111).
The second reason that religious traditions are paramount for addressing ecological crises flows from the first: they have long been central in addressing ethical concerns and contributing to a vision of what humanity is and can be. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI suggests the Catholic Church is an “expert in humanity,”6 while Francis proposes that “the rich heritage of Christian spirituality, the fruit of twenty centuries of personal and communal experience, has a beautiful contribution to make to the renewal of humanity.” Indeed, Francis points to the rich insights that all religions can make, and he urges dialogue among them “for the sake of protecting nature, defending the poor, and building networks of respect and fraternity.”7 Since the root of the ecological crisis is a faulty, sinful conception of the human person and her role in creation, so a theological redefinition of the human person and her good is an essential component of crafting a long-term, truly sustainable solution to the ecological crisis. The task of the theologian is not necessarily to endorse specific policy proposals, but to draw on the riches of a millennia-old tradition (and traditions) in order to provide the seeds of a global cultural renewal. The world’s religious traditions are invited to contribute to nurturing new patterns of human-Earth relationship dedicated to a sustainable flourishing for all creatures.
I.1. Ecology and Religions: Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents
While I affirm the great potential for a productive relationship between religious traditions and the environmental movement, there has been historically a more
ambiguous relationship between them that continues to shape how religions perceive and respond to the ecological crisis. Religions have always had an ecological dimension in the way they ground humans in nature’s rhythms,8 but their relationship to the modern environmental movement is more contentious. Up until the mid-twentieth century, environmentalism in the United States was understood by two broad approaches, conservationism and preservationism. Conservationists recognized that natural resources are not limitless, and so they aimed to ensure their long-term availability for future generations. Gifford Pinchot (1865–1946), the first chief of the US Forest Service, is the classical representative: “Without natural resources life itself is impossible. From birth to death, natural resources, transformed for human use, feed, clothe, shelter, and transport us. Upon them we depend for every material necessity, comfort, convenience, and protection in our lives. Without abundant resources prosperity is out of reach.”9 The second approach is typified by naturalist John Muir and the origins of the Sierra Club, and this movement had the initial goal of preserving the beauty of nature both for its own sake and for humanity’s aesthetic enjoyment.
By the 1960s, however, a new strain of environmentalism emerged: protectionism . 10 Spurred on by the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), the burning of the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland (1969), and the plight of endangered species, people became increasingly concerned about humanity’s destructive capacity, and so the focus became protection, defending the Earth and nonhuman species from human beings’ excessive contamination and profligate killing. Environmentalism moved from “conserve nature for human use ” and “ preserve nature for human appreciation ,” to “protect nature from human abuse .”
More importantly, environmentalists diagnosed the cause of the problem as anthropocentrism and the presumption that nature has solely instrumental value. Anthropocentrism places the human at the center of moral consideration and as the only intrinsically worthwhile creature, for whom all other creatures are made. By contrast, nature possesses only instrumental value, as it contributes to human needs.11 For some environmentalists, therefore, humanity is the problem, and reducing the human presence and returning to nature is the solution. Indeed, for some, nature has become the primary sacred reality to which humanity must submit.12 Leaders of the environmental movement, never that rooted in traditional religions anyway, then “framed their agenda in increasingly secular or even anti-Christian terms.”13 Some groups (such as Earth First!) even adopted pagan symbols as a way to express their break from traditional religion, and some Christians retaliated by dismissing environmentalism outright.14 Christian churches feared the effects of this kind of environmentalism and saw it as essentially anti-Christian. It attacks the human, unduly elevates nature, and eclipses God.
Christianity was early on identified as thoroughly anthropocentric and therefore at the root of this crisis.15 Christian theologians responded in a variety of ways in order to demonstrate how Christianity can support ethical non-anthropocentrism and the intrinsic value of creation. They re-examined and reinterpreted scriptural passages and core theological doctrines, from the meaning of the incarnation of Jesus Christ to the activity of the Spirit in creation, and in doing so have formed a multifaceted and potent response. Activists have built relationships with environmental groups and have established collective projects, and the bond between religion and ecology is now strong.16 They demonstrate the myriad ways in which religious traditions can indeed be a guide for nurturing a sustainable Earth ethic.
Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, leaders in the field of religion and ecology, argue that religion has ways of grounding, orienting, nurturing, and transforming human communities. Religions offer cosmologies, stories that give humans a sense of the whole, that bind “peoples, biodiversity, and place together,”17 and enable them to narrate the larger mystery that surrounds them.18 Religious ecologies flow from them; they are “functional cosmologies that express an awareness of kinship with and dependence on nature for the continuity of all life.”19 Religious ecologies become ways of “orienting humans to the universe, grounding them in the community of nature and humans, nurturing them in Earth’s fecund processes, and transforming them into their deeper cosmological selves.”20
After forty years of work, religious ethicists are now revisiting the centrality of the cosmological question, and some suggest moving beyond the debate surrounding anthropocentrism versus geocentrism and nature’s intrinsic versus instrumental value.21 Willis Jenkins offers the categories of soteriology and grace for articulating a different approach to ecological ethics. Ecologies of grace, rather than cosmologies of nature’s goodness, provide a more secure platform for Christians to engage ecological ethics because they conjoin caring for Earth with the core of religious practice, namely salvation.22 Recently, Jenkins has warned against the “cosmological temptation” for doing ecological ethics. Effective ethics tend to be more pluralist and require a variety of contextually driven responses, rather than a “topdown” approach in which a theorist provides a vision of the world and hopes that ethical choices follow.23 Jenkins and others are right that cosmological approaches are certainly not the sole contribution that religious ethicists can make.
At the same time, Jenkins acknowledges the abiding pragmatic value of cosmologies for guiding religious responses.24 Especially in the Catholic Church, cosmological interpretations of humanity’s relationship to God and to creation have proven fruitful for reorganizing themes of religious life, liturgy, and efforts to build a sustainable and just world.25 Moreover, many organizations that draw on the Catholic Church’s social teaching on the value of life, itself grounded in cosmological views of the person, have begun to adopt environmental themes, including Catholic Relief Services (CRS)26 and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD).27
The enduring vitality of religious cosmologies suggests that theologians still need to voice a definitive answer to the basic questions of humanity’s role on Earth and in the cosmos28 and of the value of nonhuman creatures.
To do so, I propose a cosmological ethic: the cosmic common good. 29 A cosmological approach lends itself to building bridges between religious traditions, for whom worldviews and ethics remain indissoluble. The dialogue I establish between a Catholic worldview and other religious traditions depends on the overriding context of cosmological worldviews and their ecological promise. 30 Moreover, I argue that the cosmic common good can also respond to Jenkins’s proposal that ecological ethics be cast in terms of soteriology. Thus a cosmological dialogue, while not the only possible approach to an imperiled Earth and the call to do justice to both Earth and humanity, remains pertinent.
The cosmic common good provides a ground for and solidifies (1) an ethical non-anthropocentrism, in which humans are part of a greater whole; (2) both the instrumental and intrinsic value of nonhuman nature; and (3) a connection between the ends of religious practice and the pursuit of this common good. These broad parameters will find different expressions as they are thickened through the particularities of various religious traditions.
II. Twofold Approach: Catholic Social Thought and Other Religious Traditions
II.1. Part One: A Catholic Cosmic Common Good
This book approaches the question of what kind of ethics an imperiled Earth needs by conjoining two distinct but compatible methodological approaches. I begin this ethical renewal from the perspective of Catholicism, and specifically from the tradition of reflection on social issues known as Catholic social teaching31 and Catholic social thought.32 Though it has roots in Christian Scripture and is present in some manner throughout the theological traditions of the Church, Catholic social teaching proper begins in 1891, with the publication of Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII. Today there are multiple papal social encyclicals and scores of documents from local bishops’ conferences around the world that make up Catholic social teaching. From the beginning, Catholic social teaching has sought to apply core theological principles regarding the dignity of the human person and her intrinsically social nature to emerging problems of modern society. Leo XIII and subsequent popes responded to times of great social upheaval, and they strove to forge a properly Catholic and Christian understanding of the human person in relationship to society. They formulated and highlighted Catholic perspectives on social goods and evils, from the proper role of government and the scope of private
property to colonialism and war. In this way, Catholic social teaching is grounded in a vision of the reign of God that is not fixed to particular historical contexts, yet is capable of growth in order to articulate principles that can meet a variety of social concerns and across shifting cultural contexts. Catholic social thought has utilized and ramified this heritage and has applied it to a host of diverse contexts and issues.
In Part One of this volume, I draw on the work of the many popes, bishops, and theologians who have used various principles of Catholic social thought to address ecological crises to argue that these principles, once extended and reoriented in a fully ecological and non-anthropocentric direction, form a suitable ground upon which to build a healthier human-Earth relationship.33 In particular, it is from this expansive vision of the common good that I derive my proposal for the cosmic common good. A Catholic cosmic common good and related concepts of Earth solidarity and Earth rights frame my approach to Catholic ecological ethics. Of course, one could simply propose analogous concepts of the common good, solidarity, and rights that apply to nonhuman creation and bear different names. Yet creating terms applicable only to nonhuman nature serves to reinforce the sharp divide between humans and nature that ecological theologians have been striving to deconstruct. Moreover, drawing on and expanding concepts deeply rooted in Catholic social thought gives the reformulated terms a gravitas that they might not otherwise have. This additional moral weight is deserved based on the scope and severity of the ecological crisis. The global forces that imperil Earth and the planetary common good pose a danger that justifies retrieving and revising the traditions of the common good, solidarity, and rights so as to increase protections for the planetary common good. I hope to demonstrate that the extensions that I and many others have proposed are justified and necessary, and that this provides a consistent approach to ecological concerns based on Catholic social thought.
Of course, this does not begin to explore all the possible intersections between the Catholic intellectual tradition and ecological ethics, nor does my appeal to particular theologians within the Catholic tradition such as Augustine and Aquinas exhaust their potential contributions to a rigorous Catholic ecological ethic. Instead, I aim to do something more constrained and limited: an approach to ecological ethics through the principle of the cosmic common good. This book therefore proposes that revised principles from Catholic social thought—in particular the principle of the cosmic common good—can orient human responsibility toward humanity’s fuller participation in a wider web of creation and thus can become a unifying framework for ecological ethics.
By calling the cosmic common good a “ground” for ecological ethics, I mean that it can function as a foundation and bedrock for further work, but I select the term “ground” deliberately. A foundation provides a solid and secure base upon which to build, and it may result from human labor or may occur naturally through
nonhuman cosmic processes. Ground, however, is an organic foundation, upon which living creatures depend. An ethical ground is not only a basis for life; it is a living metaphor itself. In this way the cosmic common good does not refer to the cosmos (and more locally to the Earth) as a mere theoretical or metaphorical base. Instead, it is a principle that strives to return us to a living reality. The cosmic common good reminds us that every aspect of humanity’s biological, cultural, and even spiritual lives are emergent properties that spring forth from and are inextricable from the ground of Earth. Moreover, “ground” also carries theological connotations of mysterious and divine depths. Lutheran theologian Paul Tillich famously defined God as the “ground and power of being.”34 In a similar way, I configure the cosmic common good as a grounding metaphor that points to the sacred depth dimension of the cosmos.35 The cosmic Earth is the ground where God and the human meet. There is no sufficient human encounter with God, the ground and the power of being, without the Earth as ground.
In a similar way, I envision Catholic social thought as a kind of garden of ideas that have given fruit to the reflection of Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Like a garden, Catholic social thought is not a fixed and static tradition but a living reality, which provides a genetic heritage that can give birth to a new kind of ethical reflection. This neologism (or nearly so) is a conscious attempt to avoid the popular metaphor of “mining the tradition for its resources.”36 I am painfully aware that mining can produce dividends but can also be ecologically toxic. Mining can weaken and erode a tradition, just as it can weaken and erode the Earth. Rather, I attempt to develop, organically, from the soil of Catholic social thought, indications of ways that the Catholic tradition may be pruned so that it might bear more fruit (John 15:1–3).
II.2. Part Two: The Cosmic Common Good and Interreligious Ecological Ethics
Equally important, I believe that the cosmic common good can establish a common ground with other religious and theological traditions, and indeed that dialogue is necessary for a robust comprehension of each tradition’s expression of the cosmic common good. Thus in Part Two I bring this expanded vision of Catholic social thought into dialogue with other religious traditions.37
Since much has been done to describe the ways in which various religious traditions might guide us to a more sustainable human-Earth relationship, I seek to place these contributions into constructive dialogue. I maintain that the cosmic common good can be a thoroughly Catholic concept, rooted in a Christian tradition devoted to the God of Jesus Christ. Yet its basic tenets are flexible enough that it can find resonance across multiple traditions that do not share the same
theological and theocentric foundations. The cosmic common good springs from many religious grounds and so is well attuned to speak to diverse forms of religious ecological ethics and hopefully aid in addressing global ecological concerns.
Thus in the latter half of the book, I identify and explore cognates to a Catholic cosmic common good in non-Christian traditions, specifically Hindu, Buddhist, and American Indian traditions. This kind of interreligious dialogue, which as I explain later is more properly defined as comparative theology, is necessarily partial and merely preliminary. It does not propose to exhaust the possibilities for an interreligious ecological ethic, but it does hope to show that such a common ground can be reasonably proposed and supported.
This book therefore employs a twofold approach: a systematic presentation of how certain principles of Catholic social thought might be expanded in order to address ecological concerns; and a critical dialogue between these principles and non-Christian religious traditions in a way that challenges and expands these principles further. In other words, I aim (1) to extend Catholic social thought ecologically, and (2) to extend Catholic ecological ethics comparatively.
My vision of the cosmic common good is rooted in and stems from the Catholic Christian tradition, but it is also a solid ground for ecological ethics with roots in multiple religious traditions, and each tradition expresses it in various ways. The broad features of a Catholic cosmic common good can dialogue critically with non-Christian traditions in order to develop an interreligious theological vision for a sustainable ecological ethic. Each tradition that I engage becomes its own ground for the cosmic common good as well, which in turn expands my initial articulation of a Catholic cosmic common good. The cosmic common good reflects and unifies multiple religious grounds for ecological ethics and so bears the potential to be, as Francis describes, the “broader vision of reality” that sees all things as interconnected, the source for an “ecological culture” that might lead to “a renewal of humanity itself.”
III. Outline of Chapters
My exploration of Catholic social thought and ecological ethics begins in Chapter 2 with the principle of the common good. I first outline the background and history of this principle in Catholic social thought. Then I explore the justifications, scientific and theological, for why Catholic social thought ought to promote a cosmocentric ethic that envisions the well-being of humanity as bound up with the flourishing of an intrinsically valuable cosmos, leading to reformulated principles of creaturely dignity and cosmic participation.
Chapter 3 looks to classical sources to enrich a Catholic cosmic common good, namely St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. I identify in their theologies of
creation a fivefold cosmic common good: the ultimate good of creation to glorify God; the good of individual creatures pursuing their own perfections; the good of creatures for other creatures; the good of a diversity of creatures; and the good of the order of creatures. By looking to Augustine and Aquinas, I hope to demonstrate that the notion of a cosmic common good has significant roots in Christian theologies of creation, and that properly understood in a Christian context, the cosmic common good represents a theocentric valuation of all creation.
Chapter 4 focuses on cultural historian and “geologian” Thomas Berry, C.P., whose articulation of the evolutionary cosmic story as told by modern science has profoundly influenced contemporary eco-theologians. Berry underscores the importance of narrative, specifically the cosmos’s history, as an essential component of understanding the cosmos’s intrinsic goodness. For Berry, this narrative describes a threefold nature of every creature that signifies its contribution to the common good: differentiation, subjectivity, and communion. Together, these demonstrate how a Catholic cosmic common good represents a thoroughly cosmocentric valuation of creation.
The chapters on classical and modern contributions to a Catholic cosmic common good do not represent an exhaustive treatment of what Augustine, Aquinas, and Berry contribute to ecological ethics; nor do they purport to offer a systematic analysis of their theologies of creation. These chapters are markers, indicators of how the cosmic common good finds its roots in the Catholic tradition and what features of their theology the cosmic common good might include. As such, I do not enter into critical debates regarding any of these thinkers, or argue that these features are the only contribution to ecological ethics they may make.
With this foundation, Chapters 5 and 6 look into how other principles of Catholic social thought should be extended to correspond to the cosmic common good and to address properly the scope of ecological degradation. Chapter 5 examines the principle of solidarity in Catholic social thought, assessing its features as a virtue and outlining the dimensions of the virtue of Earth solidarity. Chapter 6 focuses on Catholic social thought’s tradition of human rights and the justifications for extending rights to nonhumans before offering my own list of Earth rights. These two chapters attempt to capture, through the lens of Catholic social thought, the dual aims of love and justice for creation: What kind of affective dispositions should a Catholic cosmic common good cultivate? What concrete responsibilities and limits does a Catholic cosmic common good impose?
Chapters 2 through 6 synthesize a comprehensive ecological ethic framed through revised principles of Catholic social thought. The chapters in Part Two engage the second aim of this book: testing out the validity and boundaries of the cosmic common good in non-Christian religious traditions and seeing how this dialogue impacts a Catholic cosmic common good. Part Two begins, in Chapter 7, with a brief explanation of comparative theology, its methods and purposes, and
why I limit myself to particular dimensions of each religious tradition. Similar to Chapters 2, 3, and 4, the next three chapters are merely indicators of how the cosmic common good finds resonance in other religious traditions. I hope that these preliminary investigations initiate a deeper and more rigorous dialogue between and among these traditions, as well as branching out to test this ground with other traditions.
In Chapter 8 I look to Hindu traditions and the principle of dharmic ecology. As depicted in the Bhagavad Gītā, Hindu dharma presents an alternative theocentric orientation of the cosmic common good in a way that confirms and diversifies a Catholic cosmic common good. Moreover, dharma focuses on the good of the ātman (self) and extols an ethic of ahiṃsā (nonviolence) and vegetarianism. Yet by including all living creatures in the scope of this ātman, dharmic ecology suggests that an ātmanocentrism poses a more intense rejection of anthropocentrism than even a Catholic cosmic common good attains.
Chapter 9 explores the Buddhist tradition and its principle of pratītyasamutpāda, translated as dependent origination or interdependence. Buddhist traditions offer a helpful contrast to my Christian articulation of the cosmic common good: they are non-theistic, avowing no Creator or supreme deity. So while the Christian may understand the common good to be thoroughly theocentric, a Buddhist counterpart will have no God to whom the whole is directed. While the Hindu principle of the ātman undermines human uniqueness, the Buddhist principle of interdependence anatta (no self) underscores creaturely commonality by depicting the radical dependence of all beings on each other.
Finally, Chapter 10 looks to indigenous traditions, specifically those of American Indians, and to two concrete religio-cultural practices of the Lakota. An indigenous tradition represents a critical dialogue partner for a Catholic cosmic common good: indigenous peoples are often seen as paragons of ecologically friendly cultural and religious traditions; even more importantly, they help expose the potentially oppressive and hegemonic tendencies of articulating a common good for all species and peoples, regardless of cultural differences. The Lakota ethic of balance with “all our relations” reiterates central components of the cosmic common good, while also injecting key warnings about how Western Christians understand the common good.
Each conversation with other religious traditions confirms, broadens, and challenges a Catholic cosmic common good in distinctive ways. Hindu dharmic ecology demonstrates how a thoroughgoing theocentrism can be combined with a broader category of dignity and a stronger ethic of solidarity. Buddhist interdependence underscores cosmological holism and its integral place in religious practice, but also presents a non-theistic universe. An American Indian ethic of balance with all our relations introduces spatiality as a lens to articulate human planetary belonging, a lens that also exposes histories of systemic violence.
Thus Part One argues that an expanded principle of the common good—the cosmic common good—presents the foundation for a coherent Catholic ecological ethic. As such, it includes and incorporates other facets of Catholic social thought, such as solidarity, rights, and the preferential option for the poor. Part Two extends this by arguing that the cosmic common good provides a bridge to other religious traditions, which have principles that are not identical, but that bear a family resemblance to a Catholic cosmic common good. The cosmic common good is an authentic way of ecologically reorienting Catholic social thought to respond to ecological issues that also resonates with other religious traditions. Deeper engagement with these other religious traditions will allow a Christian vision of the common good to be enriched and extended in unanticipated but fruitful ways.
The cosmic common good is an ambitious proposal. Each chapter deserves greater scrutiny and could indeed be its own book. I sketch the possibilities for various cosmic common goods not as a definitive conclusion but as an invitation to generate greater interreligious dialogue and cooperation on an issue that demands extensive and immediate action. Each chapter, I hope, is the beginning of a longer conversation. The cosmic common good emerges as a feasible ground for interreligious ecological ethics; it is the soil from which a truly “ecological culture” might emerge, returning humanity to a healthier and sustainable relationship to the planet and the cosmos to which we belong.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
his four subordinate officers. During the trial and after there were many demonstrations of popular sympathy with the prisoners. Meantime, in April, the Transvaal authorities had brought the imprisoned leaders of the Johannesburg "reform committee" to trial at Pretoria on charges of treason and had convicted them all. Four, namely, Colonel Rhodes (brother of Cecil), Lionel Phillips, George Farrar, and John Hays Hammond (an American), were sentenced to death; the remainder to a payment of heavy fines. The death sentences were soon commuted, first to imprisonment for fifteen years, and subsequently to fines of $125,000 on each of four prisoners.
SOUTH AFRICA:
The Transvaal: A. D. 1896 (January). Message of the German Emperor to President Kruger, relative to the Jameson Raid.
The critical situation of affairs produced by the Jameson raid was dangerously complicated at the beginning by the publication of the following telegram, sent to President Kruger, on the 3d of January, by the German Emperor: "I express my sincere congratulations that, supported by your people and without appealing for help to friendly powers, you have succeeded by your own energetic action against the armed bands which invaded your country as disturbers of the peace, and have thus been enabled to restore peace, and safeguard the independence of your country against attacks from without."
President Kruger replied: "I testify to Your Majesty my very deep and heartfelt thanks for Your Majesty's sincere congratulations. With God's help we hope to do everything further that is possible for the holding of our dearly bought independence and the stability of our beloved republic." This kindled a white heat of indignation in England. It was supposed to signify a disposition on the part of the German Emperor to recognize the absolute independence which the South African Republic claimed, and to threaten interference as between Great Britain and the Boers. A powerful "flying squadron" was instantly put in commission, and several ships
were ordered to Delagoa Bay. For some time the relations between Great Britain and Germany were seriously strained; but various influences gradually cooled the excited feeling in England, though not a little distrust of German intentions has remained.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1896 (January-April).
Urgency of the British Colonial Secretary for redress of Uitlander grievances.
Invitation to President Kruger to visit England. His requirement that Article IV. of the London Convention shall be discussed.
Deadlock of the parties.
The complaints of the Uitlanders, effectually silenced for the time being at Johannesburg by the vigorous action of the Boers, were now taken up by the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Chamberlain, and pressed in strenuous despatches to the High Commissioner in South Africa, Sir Hercules Robinson. On the 4th of January, 1896, four days after the surrender of Jameson and four days before the insurgent Uitlanders at Johannesburg had laid down their arms, a long despatch was cabled by Mr. Chamberlain to the High Commissioner, instructing him to make "friendly representations" to President Kruger on the subject of those complaints. "I am aware," wrote the Colonial Secretary, "that victory of Transvaal Government over Administrator of Mashonaland may possibly find them not willing to make any concessions. If this is the attitude they adopt, they will, in my opinion, make a great mistake; for danger from which they have just escaped was real, and one which, if the causes which led up to it are not removed, may recur, although in a different form. I have done everything in my power to undo and to minimise the evil caused by late unwarrantable raid by British subjects into the territory of the South African Republic, and it is not likely that such action will be ever repeated; but the state of things of which complaint has been
made cannot continue forever. If those who are now a majority of inhabitants of the Transvaal, but are excluded from all participation in its government, were, of their own initiative, and without any interference from without, to attempt to reverse that state of things, they would, without doubt, attract much sympathy from all civilised communities who themselves live under a free Government, and I cannot regard the present state of things in the South African Republic as free from danger to the stability of its institutions.
{467}
The Government of the South African Republic cannot be indifferent to these considerations, and President of South African Republic himself has on more than one occasion, expressed his willingness to inquire into and to deal with just reasons for discontent; and the Volksraad have now the opportunity to show magnanimity in the hour of their success and to settle all differences by moderate concessions. They must fully admit the entire loyalty of yourself and of Her Majesty's Government to the terms of London Convention, as shown by their recent intervention, and they must recognise that their authority in crisis through which they have passed could not have been so promptly and effectively asserted without that intervention. If they will recognise this by making concessions in accordance with our friendly advice, no one will be able to suggest that they are acting under pressure, and their voluntary moderation will produce best effect among all who are interested in well-being of the Transvaal and in future of South Africa."
On the 13th of January the Colonial Secretary pursued the subject in another despatch to Sir Hercules Robinson, as follows: "Now that Her Majesty's Government have fulfilled their obligations to the South African Republic, and have engaged to bring the leaders in the recent invasion to trial, they are anxious that the negotiations which are being conducted by you should result in a permanent settlement by
which the possibility of further internal troubles will be prevented. The majority of the population is composed of Uitlanders, and their complete exclusion from any share in the government of the country is an admitted grievance which is publicly recognised as such by the friends of the Republic as well as by the opinion of civilised Europe. There will always be a danger of internal disturbance so long as this grievance exists, and I desire that you will earnestly impress on President Kruger the wisdom of making concessions in the interests alike of the South African Republic and of South Africa as a whole. There is a possibility that the President might be induced to rely on the support of some foreign Power in resisting the grant of reforms or in making demands upon Her Majesty's Government; and in view of this I think it well to inform you that Great Britain will resist at all costs the interference of any foreign Power in the affairs of the South African Republic. The suggestion that such interference was contemplated by Germany was met in this country by an unprecedented and unanimous outburst of public feeling. In order to be prepared for all eventualities, it has been thought desirable by Her Majesty's Government to commission a Flying Squadron of powerful men-of-war, with twelve torpedo-ships; and many other vessels are held in reserve. Her Majesty's Government have no reason, at the present moment, to anticipate any conflict of interest with foreign Powers; but I think it right for you to know that Great Britain will not tolerate any change in her relations with the Republic, and that, while loyally respecting its internal independence, subject to the Conventions, she will maintain her position as the Paramount Power in South Africa, and especially the provisions of Article IV. of the Convention of 1884. It is my sincere hope that President Kruger, who has hitherto shown so much wisdom in dealing with the situation, will now take the opportunity afforded to him of making of his own free will such reasonable concessions to the Uitlanders as will remove the last excuse for disloyalty, and will establish the free institutions of the Republic on a firm and lasting basis."
To this Sir Hercules replied with a remonstrance, saying: "Your telegram 13 January No.1 only reached me last night after I had left Pretoria. I could, if you consider it desirable, communicate purport to President of South African Republic by letter, but I myself think such action would be inopportune. … Nearly all leading Johannesburg men are now in gaol, charged with treason against the State, and it is rumoured that Government has written evidence of a long-standing and wide-spread conspiracy to seize Government of country on the plea of denial of political privileges, and to incorporate the country with that of British South Africa Company. The truth of these reports will be tested in the trials to take place shortly in the High Court, and meanwhile to urge claim for extended political privileges for the very men so charged would be ineffectual and impolitic. President of South African Republic has already promised municipal government to Johannesburg, and has stated in a Proclamation that all grievances advanced in a constitutional manner will be carefully considered and brought before the Volksraad without loss of time; but until result of trials is known nothing, of course, will now be done." Mr. Chamberlain saw force in the High Commissioner's objections, and assented to a momentary suspension of pressure on the Transvaal President, but not for long. "I recognise," he telegraphed on the 15th, "that the actual moment is not opportune for a settlement of the Uitlanders' grievances, and that the position of the President of the South African Republic may be an embarrassing one, but I do not consider that the arrest of a few score individuals out of a population of 70,000 or more, or the supposed existence of a plot among that small minority, is a reason for denying to the overwhelming majority of innocent persons reforms which are just in themselves and expedient in the interests of the Republic. Whatever may be said about the conduct of a few individuals, nothing can be plainer than that the sober and industrious majority refused to countenance any resort to violence, and proved their readiness to obey the law
and your authority. I hope, therefore, to hear at an early date that you propose to resume the discussion with President of South African Republic on lines laid down in my previous telegrams. I do not see that the matter need wait until the conclusion of the trial of the supposed plotters."
On the 28th of January the High Commissioner, under instructions from London, addressed to President Kruger the following invitation: "I am directed by Her Majesty's Government to tender to your Honour a cordial invitation to visit England, with a view to discussing with them all those questions which relate to the security of the South African Republic and the general welfare of South Africa. I am to add that, although Her Majesty's Government cannot consent to modify Article 4 of the London Convention [see above; A. D. 1884-1894], other matters are open to friendly discussion. {468}
Her Majesty's Government hope that your Honour will come as the guest of the British Government." While this invitation was being considered, and before a reply to it had been made, the British Colonial Secretary reopened his own discussion of the questions at issue, February 4, in a despatch of great length, reviewing the whole history of the relations of the Uitlanders to the government of the South African Republic, and of the recent occurrences which had been consequent upon their discontent. It praised "the spirit of wisdom and moderation" shown by President Kruger, who "kept within bounds the natural exasperation of his burghers," and it gave especial attention to a proclamation which President Kruger had addressed to the inhabitants of Johannesburg, on the 10th of January, in which he had said: "It is my intention to submit a draft Law at the first ordinary session of the Volksraad, whereby a Municipality with a Mayor at its head will be appointed for Johannesburg, to whom the whole municipal government of this town will be entrusted."
On this the Secretary made the following suggestions: "Basing
myself upon the expressed desire of President Kruger to grant municipal government to Johannesburg, I suggest, for his consideration, as one way of meeting the difficulty, that the whole of the Rand district, from end to end, should be erected into something more than a municipality as that word is ordinarily understood; that, in fact, it should have a modified local autonomy, with powers of legislation on purely local questions, and subject to the veto of the President and Executive Council; and that this power of legislation should include the power of assessing and levying its own taxation, subject to the payment to the Republican Government of an annual tribute of an amount to be fixed at once and revised at intervals, so as to meet the case of a diminution or increase in the mining industry. As regards judicial matters in such a scheme, the Rand, like the Eastern Provinces and the Kimberley District of the Cape Colony, might have a superior court of its own. It would, of course, be a feature of this scheme that the autonomous body should have the control of its civil police, its public education, its mine management, and all other matters affecting its internal economy and well-being. The central Government would be entitled to maintain all reasonable safeguards against the fomenting of a revolutionary movement, or the storage of arms for treasonable purposes within the district. Those living in, and there enjoying a share in the government of, the autonomous district, would not, in my view, be entitled to a voice in the general Legislature or the Central Executive, or the presidential election. The burghers would thus be relieved of what is evidently a haunting fear to many of them although I believe an unfounded one that the first use which the enfranchised newcomers would make of their privileges would be to upset the republican form of government. Relieved of this apprehension, I should suppose that there would not be many of them who would refuse to deal with the grievances of the comparatively few Uitlanders outside the Rand on those liberal principles which characterized the earlier legislation of the Republic. The President may rest assured that in making the above
suggestions I am only actuated by friendly feeling towards himself and the South African Republic. They are not offered in derogation of his authority, but as the sincere and friendly contribution of Her Majesty's Government towards the settlement of a question which continues to threaten the tranquillity of the Republic and the welfare and progress of the whole of South Africa. A proper settlement of the questions at issue involves so many matters of detail which could be more easily and satisfactorily settled by personal conference, that I should be glad to have the opportunity of discussing the subject with the President, if it suited his convenience, and were agreeable to him, to come to this country for the purpose. Should this be impracticable, I rely upon you to make my views known to him and to carry on the negotiations."
This despatch, as soon as it had been forwarded from the Colonial Office, was published in the "London Gazette," so that a telegraphed summary of its contents reached President Kruger before it came to him officially, which naturally added something to the irritations existing at Pretoria. However, the President, on the 8th of February, by telegram to the High Commissioner, and more fully on the 25th by letter, responded to the invitation to visit England. In his telegram he said:
"In order to give me the liberty to let the Honourable Volksraad judge whether permission and power to act will be given me to go out of the country, an understanding must, of course, first be come to as to what points will he discussed or not, so that I may lay those points before the Volksraad for deliberation and resolution." In his letter he wrote:
"At the commencement, I wish to observe that the object of this letter is to pave the way for a friendly discussion of the matters herein mentioned, in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution, and further that, although as yet I desire no positive and direct assent to the desires expressed herein, I would, nevertheless, to prevent a misunderstanding,
desire to have an assurance that they will be taken into the most mature consideration with the earnest endeavour and the sincere desire to comply with my wishes. The desire to receive this assurance will be respected by your Excellency and Her Majesty's Government as reasonable, when I say that, considering especially my advanced age and the unavoidable delay, owing to my absence, in the transaction of matters affecting the highest State interests, I would, with difficulty, be able to make the sacrifice in going only to discuss matters without arriving at the desired result, and it is evident that if the assurance referred to by me cannot be given by Her Majesty's Government, in all probability the Honourable Volksraad would not grant its consent and commission. … Although, as already said, the Government could tolerate no interference in its internal relations and the official discussion of affairs with the object of requiring changes therein will have to be avoided, on the other hand I wish it to be understood that private hints given by statesmen of experience in the true interest of the country and its independence will always be warmly appreciated by me, from whatever side they may come.
{469}
"Going over to a summing up of the points which, in my opinion, should be brought under discussion, I wish to mention in the first place:
1. The superseding of the Convention of London with the eye, amongst others, on the violation of the territory of the South African Republic: because in several respects it has already virtually ceased to exist; because in other respects it has no more cause for existence; because it is injurious to the dignity of an independent Republic; because the very name and the continual arguments on the question of suzerainty, which since the conclusion of this Convention no longer exists, are used as a pretext, especially by a libellous press, for
wilfully inciting both white and coloured people against the lawful authority of the Republic; for intentionally bringing about misunderstanding and false relations between England and the Republic, whereby in this manner the interests of both countries and of their citizens and subjects are prejudiced and the peaceful development of the Republic is opposed. In the discussion of the withdrawal of the Convention as a whole, Article IV. should naturally not be kept back. I have reason to believe that the British Government has come to the decision to make no alteration in this on account of false representations made to it and lying reports spread by the press and otherwise with a certain object, to the effect that the Government of the Republic has called in, or sought, the protection of other Powers. While I thankfully acknowledge and will ever acknowledge the sympathy of other Powers or their subjects, and the conduct of the last named has, in the light of the trials recently passed through, on the whole offered a favourable contrast to that of British subjects, there is nevertheless nothing further from my thoughts than to strive for the protection of a foreign power, which I will never even seek. Neither I nor the people of the Republic will tolerate an interference with the internal relations from any power whatever, and I am prepared, if the course proposed by me be adopted, to give the necessary assurances for this, in order that Her British Majesty's Government need have no fear that Her interests in South Africa should be injured.
2. Further should be discussed the superseding of the Convention by a treaty of peace, commerce and friendship, by which the existing privileges of England in the dominion of commerce and intercourse and the interests of British subjects in the Republic will be satisfactorily guaranteed on the footing of the most-favoured nation, and herein I would be prepared to go to the utmost of what can reasonably be asked.
3. Then the necessary guarantees will have to be given against a repetition of the violation of territory out of the
territory of the Chartered Company or the Cape Colony, and of disturbing military operations and unlawful military or police or even private movements on the borders of the Republic.
4. Further should be discussed the compensation for direct and indirect injury to be given or caused to be given by England for and by reason of the incursion that recently took place. The reasons for this are evident and need no argument. The amount to be demanded it is impossible as yet to determine, but, if required, it can still be given before my departure to England.
5. I would, although in the following respects I would not insist beforehand on an assurance such as that intended with regard to the above-mentioned points, nevertheless wish to request the earnest consideration of a final settlement of the Swaziland question, in this sense, that that country shall henceforth become a part of the Republic. …
6. Further, I would very much like to have discussed the revocation of the charter of the Chartered Company, which, if this does not take place, will continue to be a threatening danger to the quiet and peace of the Republic and thereby also to the whole South Africa. I am of opinion that all the above desires are fair and just. … I will be pleased to receive the views of Her Majesty's Government on the points herein brought forward, in order that I may be enabled to bring the matter for decision before the Honourable Volksraad."
Mr. Chamberlain's reply to this communication was, in part, as follows: "Her Majesty's Government regret that President has given no definite reply to invitation to visit England which was sent to him on 28th January. This invitation was the result of private information conveyed to Her Majesty's Government that the President was desirous of arranging with them a settlement of all differences, and of placing on a permanent and friendly basis the relations between the United
Kingdom and the South African Republic. Before forwarding the invitation, Her Majesty's Government knew that his Honour was in full possession of their opinion, that no arrangement can be satisfactory or complete which does not include a fair settlement of those grievances of the Uitlander population which have been recognized by the general public opinion of South Africa, and which have been the cause of discontent and agitation in the past, and are likely unless remedied to lead to further disturbances in future, Her Majesty's Government also took care to satisfy themselves that the President had been made aware that they were not prepared to modify in any way the provisions of Article IV. of the Convention of 1884, and this was again made clear in the formal invitation to visit England. Under these circumstances, it was with great surprise that Her Majesty's Government learnt from the Despatch of the President of 25th February that his Honour objected to discuss the question of the reforms asked for by the Uitlanders, and that he desired to propose withdrawal of Article IV. of the Convention, and Her Majesty's Government regret that they were not informed of his Honour's views on the subject at an earlier date, as they would not have felt justified in inviting the President to encounter the fatigue of a journey to this country if they had not been led to believe that he was in agreement with them as to the general object of such a visit.
"In their view, Her Majesty's Government were able to offer a complete guarantee in the future to the South African Republic against any attack upon its independence, either from within any part of Her Majesty's dominions or from the territory of a foreign Power. In return, they assumed that the President would make known to them the measures which he proposed to take to remedy the acknowledged grievances of the Uitlanders, and to consider any suggestions which Her Majesty's Government might wish to offer as to the adequacy of these measures for the removal of all cause of internal disturbances. … Such a discussion as they contemplate would not involve any
acknowledgment on the part of the President of a right of interference in the internal concerns of the Republic, but would only at the most amount to a recognition of the friendly interest of Her Majesty's Government in its security, and in the general welfare of South Africa.
{470}
The President would be, of course, at liberty to accept or to reject any advice that might be tendered to him by Her Majesty's Government, but in the latter case the responsibility for the result would naturally rest wholly with him. Her Majesty's Government have already expressed a willingness to give full consideration to any representations which his Honour may wish to make on the other points named in his letter, although some of them are matters wholly in jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government. But unless the President is satisfied with the explanations I have now given, Her Majesty's Government are reluctantly obliged to come to the conclusion that no good purpose can be served by the proposed visit."
In return to this despatch, President Kruger, on 17th of March, expressed his "deep disappointment" at its contents, by reason of which, he said, "it is not possible for me to proceed to convene a special session of the Volksraad at once" for the purpose of action upon the invitation of the British Government. Thereupon (April 27), the Colonial Secretary cabled to the High Commissioner in South Africa: "Her Majesty's Government have no alternative but to withdraw the invitation, which it appears from the President's message was given under a misapprehension of the facts." Thus the two parties were at a deadlock.
Great Britain, Papers by Command: 1896, C. 7933, pages 19-91; and C. 8063, pages 11-17.
SOUTH AFRICA: Rhodesia: A. D. 1896 (March-September). Matabele revolt.
Taking advantage of the confusion in affairs which followed the Jameson raid, and its removal of part of the police force from the country, the Matabele rose in revolt. The main provocation of the rising appears to have been from severe measures that were adopted for stamping out rinderpest in the country. Many whites were killed in the regions of scattered settlement, and Buluwayo and Gwelo, where considerable numbers had taken refuge, were in much danger for a time. But prompt and vigorous measures were taken by the colonial and imperial authorities, as well as by the officers of the South Africa Company. Troops were sent from Cape Colony, Natal, and England, and Major-General Sir Frederick Carrington was ordered from Gibraltar to take command. Cecil Rhodes hastened to Salisbury on the first news of the outbreak and organized a force of volunteers for the relief of the beleaguered towns. The Transvaal government offered help. By June, when General Carrington arrived, and Lord Grey had succeeded Dr. Jameson as Administrator, the insurgent natives had been put on the defensive and had nearly ceased their attacks. They were driven into the Matoppo hills, where their position was formidably strong. At length, in August, Mr. Rhodes opened negotiations with some of the chiefs, and went, with three companions, unarmed, into their stronghold. He there made an agreement with them, which the British military authorities and many of the Matabele warriors refused to be bound by. But the revolt had been practically broken and soon came to an end.
SOUTH AFRICA: British South Africa Company: A. D. 1896 (June). Resignation of Mr. Rhodes.
On the 26th of June the resignations of Cecil J. Rhodes and Mr. Beit from the Board of Directors of the British South Africa Company, and of Mr. Rutherford Harris as its Secretary, were accepted by the Board.
SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Colony: A. D. 1896 (July). Investigation of the Jameson Raid. Responsibility of Cecil J. Rhodes.
On the 17th of July a Select Committee of the Cape Colony House of Assembly, appointed in the previous May "to inquire into the circumstances, as affecting this colony, in connexion with the preparations for and carrying out of the recent armed inroad into the territory of the South African Republic," made its report, rehearsing at length the facts ascertained, with evidence in full, and submitting a number of "conclusions," among them the following: "Your Committee are of opinion that no member of the then Colonial Government with the exception of the then Prime Minister [Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes], had any knowledge whatever or suspicion of the intention to send an armed force across the border of the South African Republic. … Your Committee is convinced that the stores and workshops of the De Beers Consolidated Mines were for some time previous to the inroad used for the storage and for the unlawful exportation of arms destined for the South African Republic, in connexion with this inroad, and also that 11 men were sent from De Beers to Johannesburg, who were afterwards allowed to resume their positions. The evidence is clear, and leaves no room for doubt on this point. The local directors give an emphatic denial to any guilty knowledge on their part, and your Committee must acquit them of anything beyond negligence, which, looking to the magnitude of the transactions and the length of time over which they extended, must have been very marked. It is not conceivable that such proceedings could have been permitted without the knowledge and approval of the Chairman and Life Governor, Mr. C. J. Rhodes. With regard to the Chartered Company, your Committee find that the principal officials in Cape Town either knew, or were in a position to have known, the existence of this plot. Two at least of the directors, Mr. Beit and the Right Honorable C. J. Rhodes, were, together with the Administrator, Dr. Jameson, and Dr. Harris, the South African Secretary of the Company, active as
promoters and moving spirits throughout, and they were from time to time kept informed of the preparations. … The whole movement was largely financed and engineered from outside, and in both cases certain directors and officials of the Chartered Company of British South Africa were active throughout. As regards the Right Honorable C. J. Rhodes, your Committee can come to no other conclusion than that he was thoroughly acquainted with the preparations that led to the inroad. That in his capacity as controller of the three great joint-stock companies, the British South Africa Company, the De Beers Consolidated Mines, and the Gold Fields of South Africa, he directed and controlled the combination which rendered such a proceeding as the Jameson raid possible. … It would appear that Mr. Rhodes did not direct or approve of Dr. Jameson's entering the territory of the South African Republic at the precise time when he did do so, but your Committee cannot find that that fact relieves Mr. Rhodes from responsibility for the unfortunate occurrences which took place. Even if Dr. Jameson be primarily responsible for the last fatal step, Mr. Rhodes cannot escape the responsibility of a movement which had been arranged, with his concurrence, to take place at the precise time it did, if circumstances had been favourable at Johannesburg."
Great Britain, Papers by Command: 1897, C. 8380, pages 7-9.
{471}
SOUTH AFRICA: British South Africa Company: A. D. 1896 (July). Parliamentary movement to investigate its administration.
In the British House of Commons, on the 30th of July, Mr. Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, made a motion for the appointment of a select committee of fifteen to conduct an inquiry into the administration of the British South Africa Company, and the motion was adopted.
SOUTH AFRICA:
The Transvaal: A. D. 1896-1897 (May-April). Continued controversies between the British Colonial Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, and the Government of the South African Republic.
Complaints and counter complaints. Aliens Immigration Law, etc.
For a time after the abandonment of the proposed visit of President Kruger to England, the older questions at issue between Great Britain and the Transvaal fell into the background; but new ones were constantly rising. Each party watched the other with suspicious and critical eyes, sharply questioning things that would hardly have been noticed in ordinary times. The Boer authorities, on their side, were naturally disturbed and made inquisitive by every movement of troops or arms in the surrounding British territory, both of which movements were being somewhat increased by the revolt of the Matabeles. They were impatient, too, for some action on the part of the British government against the chief authors of the recent invasion, the officials of the British South Africa Company, and against the Company itself. On the 11th of May, 1896, the State Secretary of the Transvaal government telegraphed to the British High Commissioner as follows: "The newspapers of the last few days state that Her Majesty's Government still continue to take the part of the Directors of British South Africa Company, especially Mr. Rhodes. This Government will not believe the accuracy of these reports, but it is of opinion that the Chartered Company as administering the Government up to now is a source of danger to whole of South Africa. The inroad into this Republic was made by officers, troops, and arms of that Chartered Company, and even the explicit prohibition of Her Majesty's Government was unable to restrain them, notwithstanding the Chartered Company had taken upon itself the international obligations of Great Britain. The behaviour of the persons who knew of the scheme of the inroad beforehand and supported it is, as we see,
defended by saying that they acted thus in the interests of and for the extension of Imperialism in South Africa. This Government does not believe that the end justifies the means, and is convinced that Her Majesty's Government does not wish to be served by misdeed."
When this had been communicated to the British Colonial Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, he replied (May 13) that the President of the South African Republic "has been misinformed if he supposes that Her Majesty's Government have taken the part of any of British South Africa Company Directors, including Mr. Rhodes, with regard to any connexion which they may be hereafter proved to have had with the recent raid. … On the contrary, while appreciating Mr. Rhodes's services in the past, Her Majesty's Government have condemned the raid, and the conduct of all the parties implicated by the telegrams recently published. Her Majesty's Government have promised a full Parliamentary inquiry, as soon as legal proceedings against Dr. Jameson and his officers have been concluded, to examine the Charter granted to British South Africa Company and the operation of its provisions, and to consider whether any improvements in it are desirable. Such an inquiry will go into the whole subject, not only of recent events, but of the whole administration. Her Majesty's Government cannot be expected to announce any decision as to the future of the Company until the Parliamentary Committee has made its recommendations."
On the 15th President Kruger replied: "This Government is very pleased at receiving the assurance that a searching inquiry is being instituted against British South Africa Company and its Directors, and will follow its course with interest." But the following month found the authorities at Pretoria still unsatisfied as to the intention of the British government to bring Mr. Rhodes and the South Africa Company to account for what they had done. On the 19th of June, the then Acting High Commissioner (Sir Hercules Robinson having gone to England on
leave) transmitted to Mr. Chamberlain two telegrams just received by him from the government of the South African Republic. The first was as follows: "Acting under instructions, I have the honour to acquaint your Excellency, for the information of Her Majesty's Government, that, with a view to the welfare and peace of South Africa, this Government is convinced that the proofs in the possession and at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government now completely justify and compel the bringing to trial of Messrs. Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Beit, and Doctor Rutherford Harris, as has already been done with Doctor Jameson and his accomplices. In the interests of all South Africa, this Government feels itself obliged to press the taking of this step upon Her Majesty's Government. I have also the honour to request your Excellency to communicate this despatch by cable to Her Majesty's Government in London."
The second was in this language: "This Government regards with great regret the delay in the matter of the inquiry with respect to the complicity and responsibility of British South Africa Company in connexion with the raid of Doctor Jameson and his band within the territory of this Republic. This Government considers it its right and duty to press for the speedy holding of the inquiry, not merely because it is the injured party but also because of its interest and share in the well-being of South Africa, whose interests, as repeatedly intimated, are also dear to Her Majesty the Queen. This Government is also convinced that it is urgently necessary that the entire control and administration, as well civil as military, be taken out of hands of British South Africa Company and transferred to Her Majesty's Government, and I am instructed to press this point on behalf of this Government. I have further the honour to request your Excellency to cable this despatch to Her Majesty's Government in London."
{472}
To these communications Mr. Chamberlain made a somewhat
haughty response. "Inform the Government of the South African Republic," he cabled on the 25th of June, "that Her Majesty's Government have received their telegrams of the 19th June, which were published in London almost simultaneously with their receipt by me. Her Majesty's Government do not require to be reminded of their duty in regard to the recent invasion of the South African Republic, and they cannot admit the claim of the Government of the Republic to dictate the time and manner in which they shall fulfil their obligations. I am unable to understand the reasons which have suddenly influenced the Government of the South African Republic to make representations which are inconsistent with their previous statements. On 18th April and on 15th May the Government of the Republic appeared to be satisfied with the assurances given them by Her Majesty's Government, from which there has never been any intention of departing. It would not be in accordance with English ideas of justice to condemn the British South Africa Company and deal with its powers as proposed in the telegrams before an enquiry had been made, and before the Company had been heard in its own defence. With regard to the demand of the Government of the South African Republic that the three gentlemen specifically named shall now be placed on their trial, you will remind them that Her Majesty's Government can only act in this matter upon the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, and in accordance with the principles of English law."
But Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, on his side, was equally perhaps more than equally watchful and critical of the doings and omissions of the government of the South African Republic. He kept an eye upon them that was especially alert for the detection of infractions of the London Convention of 1884 (see above: A. D. 1884-1894), with its provisions very strictly construed. He found treaties negotiated with foreign powers in contravention of Article IV. of that Convention, and laws passed which he deemed an infringement of its Article XIV. He arraigned the government of the Republic upon each as
