Previous Section: The Causes of Emigration, Title Page and Imprimatur
Next Section: The Causes of Emigration, § 1
[iii]
Honourable estates of the realm
Since the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences stated the question regarding the cause of emigration by Swedish people and by what means it might best be prevented, three publications in particular have been printed on this subject which deserve[iv] attention. They are those of Commissioner Kryger,1 of the Historiographer Schönberg2 and of an anonymous author,3 of which the first and last essentially agree that some very real disadvantages must exist to make a Swede dissatisfied with dwelling in Sweden, although they do not agree exactly in identifying these, while Mr Schönberg attributes that misfortune primarily to the want of a national way of thinking, which he describes on page 60 as consisting of such a love of the fatherland that it does not leave room for much consideration of the personal advantages that one may gain in another country and of the disadvantages in one’s native land, and thus of a blind sentiment or enthusiasm that precludes the use of reason and clear thinking. The first two base themselves on reason, the latter on the imagination.
I am sure that among the many matters that at present occupy the blessed Estates of the Realm this is also one of the most important; specifying all the remedies for this corrosive disease will inevitably be in vain until its causes have been discovered. It can therefore only be perplexing to the honourable Estates of the Realm when learned, honest and sensitive men of our nation come to such different conclusions on a major subject.
We all know what a large part rashness plays in all our activities. It often diverts us from the light of truth and draws[v] us into actions that appal us as soon as we allow ourselves time to consider them more carefully. It is thus quite possible that an embittered person may in the heat of the moment run away from a blessed native land, but whether his feelings may become so constant that he will never come to his senses again and feel homesick once the ardour has passed I would not dare to assert.
Similarly, unless a national way of thinking is based on a careful comparison of advantages and disadvantages, it must remain a sentiment that inhibits the use of reason in a citizen. If it is a sentiment, it must soon pass; what will citizens then have to stop them from making such comparisons, so that neither their own distress nor the luxurious living of others will strike them? For my part, therefore, I can only conclude that such a national way of thinking in a free, enlightened and rational nation that consists of a blind and fierce passion, if sustained over several years, is a sheer contradiction, unless ignorance, as the true source of such passions, is first promoted. But how freedom may be preserved under those conditions is equally incomprehensible.
It is impossible to love something that is not real or is imagined to be good; to persuade people to credit what is not true is to act contrary to conviction, and to believe it is blindness. Wretched are those societies that have to be built on such weak foundations![vi]
If the good is a genuine one, that is, if a Swede is as happy or happier in Sweden than elsewhere, then the remedy is easy, namely to make the nation aware of its well-being: to demonstrate to the farmer the security that he possesses in his land, the freedom available to his children, the respect he gains for his labour; to the workshops the freedom that activates them and the way in which a lively trade within the country and abroad makes everyone compete, in emulation of each other; that no one can be said to be oppressed in commerce and that no locality needs to languish for want of enterprise; that officials can enjoy promotion based on competence and merit; that the population in general is not oppressed by protracted legal proceedings, that everyone is secure in his or her property, and that those who are able to think and write anything to enlighten their fellow-citizens are free to do so.
But, in the absence of such things, to distract the nation from making such a comparison and to seek to implant a national way of thinking is hardly appropriate for an honest man and achieves still less.
Mr Schönberg and all honourable people along with him complain with good reason about the moral corruption among us; that luxuriance, voluptuousness, vindictiveness, self-interest, indolence and godlessness have become prevalent, no one can deny. But whether that moral corruption is the real source of Sweden’s misfortunes or whether it is the enterprising offspring of an even worse mother – that is a major question. When the country[vii] is in need of assistance, it is necessary to find the true source of the evil, or else that assistance will never materialize. There are heathen states that have existed longer than Sweden, where people are as evil as we by nature, but are less tamed by religion, yet preserve civic virtues. We see still others that, without any external enemies, have been destroyed within a century or two by barbarous customs. But we also note a major difference between them. In the former the well-being is that of the nation but in the latter that of certain individuals within it.
When that is evenly distributed, no one can afford to be wasteful. It does not suffice for the maintenance of valuable horses, superfluous servants, costly carriages, concerts, balls and entertainments; neither luxuriance nor voluptuousness is able to defile the customs there. But when the wealth belongs to a select few, there are hundreds of ways to increase it, and the heart has an impressive ability to satisfy its impure desires by means of it, which spreads like a disease and infects the entire nation.
Neither Rome nor Carthage would have become so extravagant, through their extravagance immoral and out of immorality overthrown their governments, had their magnates not extracted excessive means from their citizens for their own enjoyment.
Oppression and licentiousness are thus also the real sources of our moral degeneration.
These always go together in a society, and when either of them has been destroyed, the other vanishes of its own accord. Licentiousness is exercised either against the state or the citizens, and whichever is subjected to it will remain in bondage. But where a lawful freedom reigns they must disappear, and then the real seed of immorality will have been destroyed.
How vain, then, are the fierce campaigns that are commonly waged against our moral corruption as long as the few through their licentiousness obtain as much wealth as they desire.
A relative equality in a free state is therefore the correct mechanism by which to set it in lively motion, so that one individual may not consume the sustenance of another nor[vii] become too fat by the emaciation of the latter. Mr Schönberg’s wish that the children of the upper classes should engage in trades and crafts is an excellent one, but it is likely to remain unfulfilled unless we are not also allowed to wish the means, namely freedom, prosperity and respect for tradesmen. For few of them can be expected to show such a great enthusiasm out of a patriotic turn of mind that they will place them there as long as these are lacking.
The Royal Academy of Sciences has by means of this question, no less than in everything else, served our general interest excellently, by giving the nation an opportunity to think, speak and write about such an important subject. The honourable Estates of the Realm will certainly discover during their deliberations on this subject how much information may immediately, without the slightest cost, be obtained from all the answers received and will therefore encourage the Royal Academy to continue to raise such subjects, which truly concern our general economy.
When the Royal Academy formulated this question, the attractiveness of the subject tempted me to compose an answer to it. Here it is now delivered into the worthy hands of the honourable Estates of the Realm, which are at present busily engaged in binding our wounds. I submit it to their most enlightened consideration with all the more confidence as I myself have the responsible honour of being a lowly member of them and remain with profound reverence,
the most humble and obedient servant
of the Honourable Estates of the Realm,
Anders Chydenius
Stockholm, 16 March 1765.