Brislington Community News

In a secluded corner of St Luke’s churchyard , Brislington, overshadowed by a huge yew tree, lies the grave of Napoleonic war veteran ,travel writer and novelist , Major  Moyle Sherer . For many years the gravestone lay, forgotten , covered in leaves and has just been rediscovered by members of the churchyard maintenance team.

Born in Southampton  in 1789  Joseph Moyle Sherer attended Winchester College 1801 -07  and aged 18 received a commission in the 34th Regiment of Foot. In 1809 his corps was ordered to Portugal and Spain where the Peninsular War against Napoleon was raging . The regiment  took part in the Battles of Albuera  ,  Arroyodos Molinos (both 1811) and Vittoria (1813 ), the latter resulting in a great victory for Britain under the leadership of the Duke of Wellington . In the summer of 1813 Sherer was taken prisoner at the Battle of Maya in the Pyrenees and was a prisoner of war for two years in France,  chiefly in Bayonne.

In 1818 with the 96th  Indian Regiment Sherer went to Madras ( now Chenai ) and from there  he sent home the manuscript of his first book , “Sketches By an Officer of India For Fireside Travellers At Home ”published in 1821 by what is now Longmans & Co. Sherer dealt  with Bristol born partner in the firm, Owen Rees  ( 1770 – 1837 ). The book contains one of the earliest descriptions of a massage described as, “a pressing and rubbing of the limbs  after fatigue, or as a customary refreshment. A part of this strange ceremony is to make every joint crack”. The book was successful and after Sherer returned to England he produced a travelogue of Spain and Portugal   ,” Recollections of the Peninsula “, in 1824. This was followed in the same year by “Scenes and Impressions of Egypt and Italy “, both books being popular in their day.

In 1825 Sherer turned to romantic fiction with the publication of “The Story Of A Life”. In the same year a visit to the Continent produced “ A Ramble in Germany” (1826 ) and in 1829 he published  a second novel, “Tales of the Wars Of Our Times”. From 1830 – 32 Sherer wrote three volumes of , “Military Memoirs of Field Marshal, the Duke of Wellington “. One review noted” Major Sherer has ably completed his difficult task of compressing the history of the Duke of Wellington and of the wars of our times, into this excellent epitome”. Sherer’s vivid descriptions are easily readable today. A review of “Recollections of the Peninsula “ noted “ Few writers who are not poets by profession, have the art of painting in words, with so much vividness and distinction, the various objects which surround their views. It is scarcely possible to open the book without seeing useful and lively remarks or descriptions indescribably  descriptive “. Sherer’s final work of fiction was “The Broken Font: A Story of the Civil War”, published in 1836, around which time he retired  from the army.

Promoted to “brevet Major” in 1830 and  Captain in 1831, Sherer was an enthusiastic soldier, ill at ease with garrison and civilian life. In “Recollections of the Peninsula’  he often describes the attractions of Spanish women but the book also contains frequent descriptions and allusions to male beauty . He describes the  stripped, naked French corpses after the battle of Alburera, one of the most bloody and desperate battles of the war. ” …that boy cannot have numbered eighteen years! How beautiful, how serene a countenance !..this must have been an officer , look at the whiteness of his hands….what manly beauty! What a smile still plays  upon his lip”. He describes Portuguese soldiers as “fine sized, soldier like men…with brown complexions, black moustachios, and large dark eyes”.  Sherer never married and it easy to speculate on his  possible sexuality. He describes the  sick bed of a soldier comforted  “by some warm hearted friend who will smooth the pillow for your feverish head; will speak to you in the manly yet feeling language of encouragement… consoling you by affectionate pressures of the hand…watching anxiously that nothing may interrupt or scare your needful slumbers…nowhere is friendship more true, more warm, more exalted , than in the army”.   After being taken prisoner of war at Maya  , Sherer describes meeting a fellow prisoner, “ a brother officer…my most intimate and valued friend…meeting again under such circumstances over came me and I shed tears”.  Despite a life long military background ,  he was capable of tender affection and delicate description of people  and places .

By the mid 1820s Sherer  was living at Claverton Farm, near Bath and he retired there in about 1836. Now Manor Farm it is now used as commercial units. In the 1841 census he was lodging at Week Farm, Combe Hay, Priston, near Bath. The house became derelict in the 1960s and has since been rebuilt  as a holiday rental home. Sometime in the 1840s/1850s Sherer became mentally ill with a “nervous disease” and was committed to Brisiington House Asylum where he spent the rest of his life. He died  of “senile decay “aged  80 on November  15 1869 with asylum attendant , 28 year old William Appleton , present at the death.  Four days later Sherer was buried in St. Luke’s churchyard by the resident curate, Revd. George Leopold Cartwright . The gravestone is now partially worn away but begins “Sacred to the loved and honoured memory of Major Moyle Sherer”.  A newspaper epitaph described his work  as sometimes “over sentimental….. Major Sherer’s writings , however luxuriant in style…his sketches , whether of mankind , of natural beauty, or of works of art, were, in general, distinct , forcible and attractive”. Sherer’s brother, Revd George Moyle Sherer  ( 1778 – 1858 ) was vicar of St Mary’s, Marshfield, Gloucestershire,  for 36 years from 1822 until his death.

Jonathan Rowe 2024

Deuteronomy 4.1–2, 6–9

Moses said: So now, Israel, give heed to the statutes and ordinances that I am teaching you to observe, so that you may live to enter and occupy the land that the Lord, the God of your ancestors, is giving you. ²You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God with which I am charging you.

⁶You must observe them diligently, for this will show your wisdom and discernment to the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and discerning people!’ ⁷For what other great nation has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is whenever we call to him? ⁸And what other great nation has statutes and ordinances as just as this entire law that I am setting before you today?

9 But take care and watch yourselves closely, so as neither to forget the things that your eyes have seen nor to let them slip from your mind all the days of your life; make them known to your children and your children’s children.

James 1.17–27

17 Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.¹⁸In fulfilment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

19 You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; ²⁰for your anger does not produce God’s righteousness. ²¹Therefore rid yourselves of all sordidness and rank growth of wickedness, and welcome with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls.

22 But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. ²³For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; ²⁴for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like. ²⁵But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act—they will be blessed in their doing.

26 If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless. ²⁷Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Mark 7.1–8, 14, 15, 21–23

7When the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus, ²they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. ³(For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; ⁴and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) ⁵So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?’

⁶He said to them, ‘Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
“This people honours me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
⁷ in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.”
⁸You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.’

14 Then he called the crowd again and said to them, ‘Listen to me, all of you, and understand: ¹⁵there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.

²¹‘For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, ²²adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. ²³All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.’

Acts 10.44–48

44 While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. ⁴⁵The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, ⁴⁶for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter said, ⁴⁷‘Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’ ⁴⁸So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they invited him to stay for several days.

1 John 5.1–6

5Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the parent loves the child. ²By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. ³For the love of God is this, that we obey his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome, ⁴for whatever is born of God conquers the world. And this is the victory that conquers the world, our faith. ⁵Who is it that conquers the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth.

John 15.9–17

⁹As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. ¹⁰If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. ¹¹I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.

12 ‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. ¹³No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. ¹⁴You are my friends if you do what I command you. ¹⁵I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father. ¹⁶You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. ¹⁷I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.

5 February 2024

Prince William’s doubt is normal – it’s impossible to be certain whether there is a God. Our limited human understanding means we will never fully understand God in this life, writes Graham Tomlin.

Graham Tomlin

Seen and Unseen

Graham is the Director of the Centre for Cultural Witness and a former Bishop of Kensington.

A new book, serialised in the Daily Mail, suggests Prince William is wondering whether he really wants to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England. While he respects the Church, it claims, he doesn’t consider himself particularly religious and doubts if he should head up a church he doesn’t attend much. There has been a fair amount of comment on the contrast between his grandmother’s strong Christian faith, increasingly evident in her Christmas broadcasts as she came to the end of her life, and that of his father, who has also made a point since his accession to the throne of emphasising his own personal Christian commitment, both in statements around the time he became king, and in his Christmas broadcast this past year.

William, however, is less forthcoming. He was dutifully confirmed at Eton at the age of 14, and goes to church at Christmas and Easter, so presumably is not a hardened Dawkins-esque atheist. Like many of his generation he probably has his doubts about God and religion, doesn’t often speak publicly about faith and so it’s hard to know from the outside whether this really is a motivating force in his life or not.

Of course, there is a whole separate argument about why personal faith, while it helps, is not strictly necessary for such a role. Many British monarchs in the past have not had a very strong Christian faith. The significance of the role rests in the office not the person – it is a constitutional not a personal, arrangement. But that is a different story. What interests me is what this story tells us about faith and doubt and the experience of what it is to believe.

I was once an atheist. Yet, like most atheists, I had my doubts. I tried to get on with my life not believing in God, yet every now and again something would happen to make me doubt my atheism. I would meet a Christian with a profoundly impressive life motivated by their faith and it disturbed me. An argument from a Christian writer momentarily seemed strangely plausible. An encounter of the beauty and wonder of nature suddenly might lodge the thought in my mind that maybe there is a Creator after all? Like all good atheists, however, I managed to push these thoughts to the back of my mind. I learn to doubt and resist these impulses and return to my central take on the world which was that there definitely is no God.

As it happened, in time, my doubts became too strong for me, and I began to think that Christian faith made more sense of the world than atheism did. And so, eventually and slowly, I became a Christian. Of course, the process happens the other way around as well. People with a notional Christian faith start to doubt it to the extent that it no longer makes sense to them.

I have now been a Christian for many years and a Bishop for a few of those. Like in my atheist days, I have days when I wake up and wonder whether it’s all true. Am I deceiving myself? Have I wasted most of my life on something that is not real? I might read a book that is sceptical about some aspect of the Christian story and a doubt niggles away in the back of my mind. God suddenly appears silent in answer to heartfelt prayers, and for a moment I wonder if he is there at all. I have doubts, just as I did in my atheist days.

But just like I did when I was an atheist, I learned to doubt my doubts. Atheists often challenge Christians to come up with a piece of evidence that would suggest that God exists. And sometimes we try, with arguments from the design of the universe, apparent miracles, fulfilment of biblical prophecies and so on. But they never quite convince. The reason they don’t convince is that the atheist can always come up with an alternative explanation. And that takes us to the heart of the issue.

For Christians, and for other believers in God for that matter, God is not another object in the universe that can be proved or disproved. I might find indications that point in the direction of there being a God but, as the atheist points out, you can always explain them away in some form or other.

Instead, atheism and belief in God are better seen, not as the result of a process of sifting evidence, looking for proof one way or another, but as different ways of looking at the world.

Wittgenstein’s cartoon.

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once picked up a common cartoon that circulated in German comic newspapers in the late nineteenth century to make a similar point. Looked at one way, it looks like a rabbit. Look at it another way it looks like a duck. Whether you see a rabbit or a duck is dependent upon other factors. Children who have just been to the local duckpond might be inclined to see a duck. Someone with a pet rabbit might be inclined to see a rabbit. Wittgenstein’s point was about the way concepts in our mind shape our perceptions of reality. We may perceive the same thing, but we see it as something different.

This idea of ‘seeing as’ – seeing something not just in itself, but ‘as’ something shaped by our mind’s perceptions, became well known in philosophy after Wittgenstein’s use of the image. It may help us in thinking about belief in God as well.

On a Christmas Day edition of ‘The Rest is Politics’ with Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart (soon after his appearance on Re-Enchanting’), two of the most popular podcasts of our times met when Tom Holland of ‘The Rest is History’ came on the podcast. As it was Christmas Day, Alistair Campbell asked Tom Holland whether he believed the Christmas story and all the rest of the Bible. His reply referred to this very picture of the duck / rabbit, and he said:  “There are times where I can believe it, and there are other times where I look at the stories and think this is absolutely ridiculous – how could it possibly be true? I think the Infinity of space, I think of vast geological time and I think it’s absolutely nonsense. So I kind of veer between the two.”

In a way he’s right. You can’t decide between the two ways of looking at the picture by some process of forensic scientific evidence. There is no ultimate way of deciding whether it is a duck or a rabbit.

Now the analogy with faith is imperfect. The picture could be a rabbit, it could be a duck. Whereas, to put it bluntly – there either is or is not a God – both can’t be true. Where the image helps us, is that in our limited understanding of things it is impossible for any of us to say, whether believer or atheist, that we know 100 per cent definitively that there is or is not a God. Even Richard Dawkins agrees on that point!

The other difference is that you can’t be neutral on this. Whether you see it as a duck or a rabbit probably makes no difference to your life. Yet faith is more than just an opinion. It is a way of life. To ‘believe’ in God, in the Christian sense of ‘believe’ is not just to hold the opinion in your head that God exists, but to decide to live as if it true that God exists, that he is revealed in Jesus Christ, that each person you meet each day is a precious soul, for whom Jesus died and so on.

The American philosopher Michael Novak put it like this:

“The centre of the argument concerns whether I should think of the universe as impersonal and indifferent to me, and ruled by randomness and chance. Or whether I should interpret it as personal through and through, in such a way that all things that are and have been and will be dwell in the presence of God a person who understands and chooses all that he brings out of nothingness into existence.”

Whatever faith position you take up – to believe that there is a God or that there isn’t, you will have doubts. But the nature of faith is not to have an absence of doubt, but it’s how you treat those doubts. At the end of the day, each of us has to decide which approach makes most sense of the world that we experience every day. Does the problem of Evil – why bad things sometimes happen – mean you can’t believe in God? Or does the problem of Good – why good things sometimes happen – mean you can’t be an atheist?

Prince William, and Tom Holland for that matter may have their doubts about faith, But that is no reason not to decide to believe.

When I became a Christian it was because the world no longer made sense to me as a place that emerged by chance, that has no ultimate purpose, that our intelligence emerged literally from non-sense. Our deep need for love seemed to fit better with the idea that this world emerged out of love, than that it emerged from a heartless, random void. Seeing the world in that way makes better sense to me than the alternative. It doesn’t mean everything suddenly makes sense, but it does offer me a better way of thinking and living in the world. I can’t prove it. I have my days of doubt. But that’s the way I choose to believe, and choose to live.

Readers of these reflections over the past few months will know of my particular interest in the Romantic  Period and of the relationship between Germany and Britain.  This week I will spend a little time examining those influences in particular looking more generally at the Enlightenment and Culture during the period 1780-1880.

During this period philosophers, writers and artists in Britain and Germany were working under the influence of the cultural revolution known as the Enlightenment.  This could be said to have begun with René Descartes in France and with John Locke in Britain.   Isaac Newton in England and Gottfried Leibnitz in Germany were somewhat later and very influential figures.  One of the best definitions of the Enlightenment is that of Kant who wrote that the ‘Enlightenment was the emergence of human beings from a tutelage to which they had voluntarily acceded’: ‘tutelage is the inability to make use of one’s understanding without being guided by another.  Sapere aude!  Have courage to make use of your own understanding! That is the slogan of the Enlightenment’.[i]  This slogan, writes Hans Küng was addressed particularly to the ‘church authorities of all confessions’ who had been keen to keep to the superstitions, prejudices and dogmatics of the medieval period.[ii]  This cultural change, together with increasing use of the vernacular in church services as well as the gradual increase in the abilities of the bulk of the populations to read, led to profound changes in the churches and the beginning of enculturation or even, as some might suggest, the secularisation of the church.  The practical effect of these changes was the development of textual and contextual analysis of the scriptures – a process known as historical-critical analysis – which continued as the main approach to biblical hermeneutics until the end of the twentieth century when the approach was broadened to include post-modern reader-response criticism.[iii]

Apart from Newton’s forays into alchemy and an endeavour to date the universe from the Bible, this polymath was very much concerned with the development of physics, and pure and applied mathematics, establishing four fundamental principles of applied mathematics which still to this day underlie the basis of much engineering development.  It is now known that his mathematics can only be applied within certain limits, but this does not mean that his work has been superseded.[iv]  In addition, Newton developed the branch of mathematics known as the differential and integral calculus – it should be noted that Leibnitz also, and independently, developed the calculus.  As one of the foremost thinkers during the Enlightenment in England, Newton’s emphasis was always on reason – every argument had to be firmly rooted in logic.  This emphasis rather eclipsed his religious affinities and his belief in the Bible.[v]  William Blake in his philosophy was concerned to provide a counterbalance to this emphasis on reason; hence the importance he attached to the highlighting of the use of the imagination in both his written and visual work and would therefore have had a slightly greater affinity with the views of Leibnitz.

Leibnitz, was one of the foremost thinkers in Germany and was much more diverse than Newton in the way in which he developed his philosophy.[vi]  Not only was he a great mathematician but he also embraced the subjects of philology, theology, medicine and politics to mention just four of the attributes that would enable us to describe him as one of the most significant polymaths of the eighteenth century. This much broader approach to thought within the period of Enlightenment meant that reason was not so predominant in mainland Europe in comparison with the attitude in England.  Philology, for example, might be considered an unusual subject for one who is primarily known for his original work in mathematics – I highlight this interest because it has a significant bearing on Enlightenment thought in Germany.  To understand this, it needs to be remembered that Germany in the eighteenth century consisted of a large number (some two hundred) separate states or electorates with a language which could be said to be common and German, but which in practice consisted of very many dialectical and linguistic variations. Leibnitz was keen to bring some conformity to this diversity to ensure that thoughts expressed in one part of the country could be fully  understood in another, and indeed could be translated into other established languages.

In the early part of the sixteenth century, Martin Luther (1483-1546) and Hans Sachs (1494-1576) had ‘taken the rough ores of the German dialects and pounded them into a language of beauty and strength’.[vii]  During the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), development of the language languished but subsequently with the publication of Nova Methodus (1667) and On the practice and improvement of the German language (1697) by Leibnitz, the language to a greater extent was standardised. In addition, during this period interest in German thought burgeoned throughout Europe, including England.[viii] Furthermore, in an essay entitled The Leibnitzian  conception of sensation,  Jeffrey  Barnouw argues that Leibnitz gives a richer form to Aesthetics than that defined by Baumgarten.[ix] While a detailed discussion of Leibnitz’s alternative methodology to the Cartesian approach to the thought process is beyond the scope of this study, for a full discussion of the subject, reference should be made to the article by Anne Wilson in the Philosopher’s Annual No. 24 (2002) the details of which will be given later in my next Reflection.  Mention is only made of Leibnitz’s discussion of the thought process and sensation because it is consistent with the German approach to the Enlightenment.

In the German speaking world the Enlightenment was known as the Aufklärung and unlike the situation in Europe generally and in Britain in particular, the Aufklärung attached less importance to deductive Reason, and more importance to ‘instinct’, sentiment, and sensual impressions. The empirical to them was as significant as the rationalistic:  Gemüt (which is but approximately equivalent to our term ‘Soul’) became for them (the German speaking people) as sacred a word as ‘Reason’ became for the western rationalists. Romanticism, although it originated in England, was a plant that prospered lavishly in German soil.[x]

The reason for this more diverse approach to the Enlightenment may be explained by the diversity of the many German states and with the states, the multiplicity of universities, most of which were very conservative in their approach and based on the core subject of theology. After the death of Leibnitz, two figures came to dominate philosophical and literary thought in Germany; they were Kant and Schiller both of whom have featured strongly in these reflections.[xi]  As discussed previously, during this period Idealism (the word was first used by Leibnitz) came to the fore, with its emphasis that Materialism should be rejected in favour of a spiritual approach to life.[xii]  Implicit within German idealism was Transcendentalism, defined as ‘the recognition in man of the capacity of knowing truth intuitively, or of attaining a scientific knowledge of an order of existence transcending the reach of the senses, and of which we can have no sensible experience’.[xiii]

In Britain, the Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713), although he was rather eclipsed by Locke, Burke, and Hume (1711-1776), was nevertheless influential and relevant with regard to artistic and cultural exchange between Britain and Europe. He lived for much of his life in the Netherlands, and became influential in the world of artistic endeavour when, as a philosopher, he published in 1711, Characteristicks of Man, Manners, Opinions, Times, a book which according to Nicholson became the ‘manual of the age’.[xiv]  Leibnitz, as well as a number of other German philosophers including Herder and Lessing, was much influenced by this work which was translated into German.[xv]  As Nicholson quotes, ‘The sum of Philosophy’, wrote Shaftesbury ‘is to learn what is just in Society and beautiful in Nature, and the Order of the World  …’[xvi]   Vaughan indicates in German Romanticism and English Art (1979) that Burke as well as Diderot and Reynolds were strongly influenced by Shaftesbury in their explorations of the phenomenological problems of taste and sensibility.[xvii]  Drawing on the work of Shaftesbury, Burke, in his work Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas if the Sublime and the Beautiful (1757) established a line of thought in aesthetics that would be illustrated by the Sturm und Drang writers, and then be further developed by Kant in his Critique of Pure Judgement (1790).

Next time I will write more about the way in which these thoughts were brought to Britain (in particular England) by Coleridge ad Henry Crabb Robinson.

Dr David Greenwood                     26-5-22                 d.greenwood@uwtsd.ac.uk

[i] Küng, H   Christianity – Its Essence and History   London   SCM Press   1995  (First published as Christentum. Wesen und  Geschichte  by Piper Verlag, Munich  in 1994, translated by John Bowden)  p. 684.  In the version of the definition quoted, Küng  has used the word tutelage for Unmündigkeit  that is often translated as self-imposed immaturity or self-imposed nonage or minority. (Mautner, T.  Dictionary of Philosophy   London   Penguin Books   2000,   p. 168b.)
[ii] Ibid. p. 685.
[iii] The first treatise on this historical-critical analysis of the Bible was written by Johann S. Semler (1725-71) who produced in 1771-5 a Treatise on the Free Investigation of the Canon.   See Küng, H. p. 691   See also the website: http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100454243
[iv] It is important to remember that the work of Einstein did not supersede that of Newton – it defined the limits within which the principles of Newton could still be applied.  Essentially the principles of  Newton do not apply when dealing with the extremely large and the extremely small.
[v] Descartes as the father of modern philosophy had proposed a separation between science and religion which enabled both subjects to be studied independently albeit often held in contention.
[vi] Leibnitz was regarded by Herder as ‘the greatest man Germany ever possessed’ – Peter Watson quoting Herder in The German Genius, published in London by Simon and Schuster in 2010, p123.
[vii] Nicolson, Harold   The Age of Reason (1700-1789)   London   Constable and Co. Readers Union edition   1962   p. 330.
[viii] Nova Methodus set out Leibnitz’s theories on metaphysics and ontology and On the practice and improvement of the German language argued the case for the use of the German language for the expression of philosophy, science and theology rather than Latin or even French which were generally considered to be the lingua franca of intellectual expression.  For further discussion  see Nicholson, H       pp  330-333.
[ix] Mattick, Paul (ed)   Eighteenth-Century Aesthetics and the Reconstruction of Art    Cambridge   Cambridge University Press   2008, containing the essay  The Leibnitzian  conception of sensation,  by Jeffrey Barnouw   p. 82.   For a detailed discussion of Leibnitz views on the thinking process, mind, perception, representation and re-presentation see  Anne Wilson’s article in Final draft in The Philosophical Review, 110, no. 1 (January, 2001).  Reprinted in The Philosopher’s Annual XXIV, 2002.   Available:

Click to access PR%20Changing%20the%20Cartesian%20Mind.pdf

[x] Nicholson, H.,   p. 331. To argue that Romanticism originated in England is very questionable but this caveat does not alter the thrust of the argument concerning reason and the imagination.   (The word ‘Romanticism’ was first used in Germany in 1827, many years before its subsequent use by Carlyle in Britain.)
[xi] Johann G.Herder should not be forgotten in this context.  He was much influenced by Leibnitz and studied under Kant and was particularly concerned to promote the view that it was only by conscious development that humanity could attain its fulfilment. Thus he saw Bildung (approximately translated as the inner development of the individual) as a task. As Watson points out concept of  ‘Bildung as a task dominated the philosophy of the  majority of subsequent German writers … Bildung as a task comes from the recognisably Pietist  lineage and looks forward to Weber’s concept of the Protestant work ethic’.  Goethe was also prominent during this period but his work is beyond the scope of this thesis.
[xii] Goethe in particular, is noted for having been the most renowned writer of the Sturm und Drang period – a period in the literary and artistic life of Germany which lasted approximately from 1770-1780, whilst Kant achieved as a philosopher in Germany the status that had been accorded to the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, Locke, Burke and Hume in Britain.
[xiii] Transcendentalism is difficult to define in precise terms but as a philosophical term a good description is included in a thesis written by Henry D.Gray entitled Emerson – A statement of New England Transcendentalism as expressed in the philosophy of its chief exponent, published in California by Stanford University in `1917.   In a footnote transcendentalism is defined as ‘the recognition in man of the capacity of knowing truth intuitively, or of attaining a scientific knowledge of an order of existence transcending the reach of the senses, and of which we can have no sensible experience’.  Gray, page 9, footnote 8.  Rosemary Ashton emphasises the important distinction ‘between ‘transcendental’ (of our application of a priori categories of the understanding to experience) and ‘transcendent’ (beyond experience and for Kant explicitly illegitimate in the field of knowledge)’.   See Ashton, R.   p.38.
[xiv] Nicholson, H.,  p137.
[xv] Fowler, Thomas; Mitchell, John Malcolm (1911). Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of  p. 765.  Reference: In Chisholm, Hugh. Encyclopædia Britannica 24 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 763–765.
[xvi] Ibid p.137
[xvii] Vaughan, W   German Romanticism and English Art   London   Yale University Press    1979   p. 66.

Greenwash and how to spot it

Jeremy Williams

If you’ve ever stayed in a hotel, it’s likely that you’ve seen some kind of variation of the little sign in the bathroom: re-use your towels and we can all help to do our bit for the environment.

It was one of these signs that first inspired the word ‘greenwash’, back in 1986.

Environmentalist Jay Westerveld was staying at a hotel that was expanding in ways that were damaging the local environment, and they showed little awareness of green issues elsewhere on site. But when it suited them, they were happy to make it look like they cared. Re-using towels is clearly a cost saving exercise for a hotel, but by dressing it up as an environmental choice, they get a double benefit: saving money and making themselves look virtuous at the same time.

Obviously re-using your towel is an easy thing to do, and who needs fresh towels every day anyway? It’s when the language of environmentalism is used to give the appearance of care that it becomes greenwash – when there are no commitments or values underlying those claims. It is a self-serving or sometimes even false claim to be green.

Now an established term, the Oxford Dictionary calls greenwash “activities by a company or an organization that are intended to make people think that it is concerned about the environment, even if its real business actually harms the environment.”

Sticking with towels as an example, I know someone who was horrified to discover that the tea-towels in her work kitchen were thrown away after use. They are fabric tea-towels, more or less indistinguishable from those I use at home myself. She challenged the office manager over this, asking why they weren’t laundered and re-used. “Oh, it’s okay”, was the reply. “They’re eco-towels.”

They were called eco-towels because they’re apparently bio-degradeable. But the idea that you should dry up your office mugs and throw away the towel rather than dry it out and use it again is clearly bonkers. Most managers would think twice about buying ‘single-use’ or ‘disposable’ tea-towels, no matter how convenient it would be for the office rota. But eco-towels? Perfect.

Somewhat inevitably, this kind of green and vague language is on the rise, with more and more things describes as ‘eco’, ‘natural’, ‘green’ or ‘planet-friendly’. A recent global survey concluded that 40% of green claims made online were greenwash, and it’s not surprising that it is so common. The more people are aware of the climate and ecological crisis, the more we expect from the businesses we patronise. And it’s always easier to bring in superficial changes and shout loudly about them than it is to actually lower your footprint.

Unfortunately, greenwash has multiple corrosive effects. One is that it lets companies and organisations off the hook, because they have convinced people that they’re taking action. It

prolongs the damage of bad environmental practice, reaping the rewards of doing the right thing without actually doing it.

It also undermines those who are honestly doing what they can. When greenwash abounds, people get cynical, and this is especially true among more activist audiences. We expect to be lied to, and don’t believe business claims even when they’re true. That strips away the incentive to change. Or companies don’t bother to tell anyone about their green policies in case they get accused of greenwash, which reduces the opportunity to model best practice, learn from each other, and normalise environmental stewardship.

So how do we spot it, and what do about it?

Last year, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), a regulatory branch of the British government, published the results of a global sweep of green claims. Common forms included vague language and no evidence, or firms using their own made up eco-labels rather than certified schemes. If shoppers stopped and thought about it, or looked them up, they wouldn’t fall for it. But of course firms expect us to be too busy to do that, and they rely on snap impressions and the power of suggestion.

In response, the CMA created a Green Claims Code, with advice for businesses on how to present green claims transparently. They also offer some simple advice for consumers, which is worth sharing:

• Beware of slogans and vague language. ‘Green’ or ‘eco’ don’t mean anything.
• Ask for evidence, the most obvious being a reputable certification or kitemark. Common ones include Soil Association, FSC wood, Rainforest Alliance, MSC fish, etc.
• Appearances are meaningless. Brands often use images of nature and the colour green just to hint at environmental responsibility, without actually attempting any such thing.
• Remember disposal, both of packaging and the product itself.
• Consider the bigger picture. A product may be marginally better than others, but something that could never environmentally benign.

You can find out more about the Green Claims Code on their website, and they offer advice for reporting egregious claims. Don’t forget that if false green claims appear in ads, they can be challenged through the Advertising Standards Authority, who have rapped a handful of businesses over green claims recently.

While it’s important to challenge greenwash, we don’t want to accuse people of it too quickly. So it’s wise to ask people to prove it. And when we find good examples of companies that are doing things well, we can thank them for it.