Читать книгу Rhodes Scholars, Oxford, and the Creation of an American Elite - Thomas J. Schaeper - Страница 8

Chapter 1

RHODES, SOUTH AFRICA, AND OXFORD

What an amazingly clever fellow Rhodes is. The only person I ever knew who combined patriotism & plunder.

John Xavier Merriman, South African politician, 1895

The man who amalgamated the diamond industry, who created the Chartered Company and dreamed of extending British influence from the Cape to Cairo…was also the man whose guiding star was Aristotle's definition of happiness as activity in excellence, whose pocket was never without his well-thumbed Marcus Aurelius, who had the whole of the classics specially translated for himself, and whose lasting memorials are the name of a great country and an educational endowment.

L.S. Amery, Senior Rhodes Trustee, 1953

The Man

When Cecil John Rhodes died on 26 March 1902 he left one final surprise for the world. In his checkered, spectacular career he had won international fame as an empire builder, colonial governor, financier, and diamond baron. Few would have guessed that he could be a philanthropist too. Yet when his will was published about two weeks after his funeral the world learned of the bequest establishing the scholarships that bear his name. The Rhodes Scholarships quickly became the most famous educational awards in the English-speaking world.

Rhodes was born in 1853 in the Hertfordshire town of Bishop's Stortford. His father was the parish vicar. The family had eleven children, nine of whom reached adulthood. Cecil was the fifth son. The family had been able to afford to send his older brothers to public school (that is, private boarding schools), but Cecil himself went to a local grammar school.

When Cecil was seventeen his family dispatched him to South Africa. Most authorities who have written about him have stated that the reason for this move was the youth's fragile health. He was thought to have been tubercular and to have a “dickey” heart. His most recent and authoritative biographer, Robert I. Rotberg, however, sharply revises this view. Rhodes was not consumptive. Although the young man's health was often described as delicate and he occasionally suffered from what probably was arteriosclerosis, he often displayed impressive vigor and stamina. Rhodes did not suffer from constant ill health until his final years.¹

The primary reason for sending him to Africa was economic. The family hoped that Cecil would find a career and establish himself financially. Two of his older brothers were already in South Africa. Frank was a soldier, and Herbert a cotton farmer.

The territory that today makes up the Republic of South Africa was at that time a patchwork of different lands. The British Empire controlled the colonies the Cape of Good Hope and Natal. The social and political elites there were English-speaking settlers and Afrikaners of Dutch descent. These two groups coexisted in an uneasy alliance and dominated the vast majority of blacks, coloreds (people of mixed race), and Asian immigrants. Further to the north were the Dutch republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State, dominated by Boers (Dutch for “farmer”). There were also vast stretches of territory where native tribes such as the Bantu still dominated.

After only a year at farming, Rhodes followed his restless brother Herbert to the rough frontier town of Kimberley, where the discovery of diamonds in 1867 had created a hectic and brutal scramble similar to the 1849 gold rush in California. The young man who until that time had displayed no special talents or interests quickly found his métier. Over the next two years his hard work and clever, perhaps unscrupulous, dealings with competitors made him a fortune that would have lasted a lifetime for a person of lesser ambitions.

In 1873 Rhodes returned to England, primarily to see his ailing mother. While there he decided to seek admittance to the University of Oxford. As a budding entrepreneur who perhaps already aspired to political office, he appears to have felt the need for the polish that an Oxford education could give him. He wanted to be accepted as a gentleman and have social connections with the right sort of people. He also thought an academic degree could guarantee him a job in law or government, in the event that his business ventures failed to satisfy him economically or intellectually.

From 1873 to 1881 Rhodes alternated between terms in Oxford and trips to Kimberley, where he supervised his mining operations. The result was that he needed eight years to obtain a degree that normally would have taken three.

The story of Rhodes in Oxford is bathed in legends and anecdotes, many of these embellished to extravagant degrees by his earliest biographers. What impact did he have on Oxford? What impact did Oxford have on him? The answer to the first is close to none. The answer to the second is some, but not nearly as much as was formerly thought.

Then and now, a student seeking admission to Oxford must apply to one of the colleges that make up the University. Rhodes' first choice was University College, which turned him down. Depending on which version of the story one believes, he was rejected because he failed an entrance exam in Latin, because he had attended a local grammar school rather than a school like Eton or Harrow, or because he hoped to pursue only a pass degree. At Oxford at that time one could obtain either an honors degree or a less demanding “pass.” Many sons of aristocrats and gentry who were not gifted academically or who did not have lofty career goals opted for the latter.

After his rejection, Rhodes sought admission to Oriel College. When he received Rhodes' application, Oriel's provost is reputed to have exclaimed either that, “all the colleges send me their failures” or “the Master of University sends me his leavings.” Finally the provost relented and said “I think you will do.”²

During Rhodes' periods of residence in Oxford over the next eight years, he took little part in either college or university activities. In desultory fashion he studied Latin, Greek, Politics, and Law, but, like many students, he attended few of the formal, optional lectures provided by the university. Once, when reprimanded for his lack of dedication, he supposedly responded: “I shall pass, which is all I wish to do.”³ Rather than live in college, he took digs (i.e., lived “off campus”). He joined the “smart set” in clubs like Vincent's and the Bullingdon and was admitted to a local Freemasonry lodge. One of his tutors, A.G. Butler, later eulogized Rhodes in a sonnet that goes in part:

Deep-voiced, broad-fronted, with the Caesar's brow, A dreamer with a diamond in his hand Musing on Empire!⁴

However, on another occasion, Butler more soberly characterized his student's academic record:

His career at Oxford was uneventful. He belonged to a set of men like himself, not caring for distinction in the schools and not working for them, but of refined tastes, dining and living for the most part together, and doubtless discussing passing events in life and politics with interest and ability. Such a set is not very common at Oxford, living, as it does, a good deal apart from both games and work, but it does exist and, somehow, includes men of much intellectual power which bears fruit later.⁵

The fact that Rhodes was tall and a few years older than the average undergraduate helped to make him stand out. But what really gave him some degree of notoriety were his diamonds. Rather than rely on bankers and checkbooks, Rhodes always carried in his pockets a supply of uncut diamonds either wadded up in bits of paper or kept in a special little box. He would sell these one-by-one as he needed funds. On one of the rare occasions when he attended a lecture he evidently became bored, decided to show his gems to students sitting near him, and then accidentally spilled the collection onto the floor. When the irritated lecturer inquired about the commotion, someone called out, “It is only Rhodes and his diamonds.”⁶

What did the young entrepreneur derive from his university experience? Oxford today abounds with statues, inscriptions, paintings, and buildings to remind one of Rhodes. But these are entirely the result of his later benefactions, not from any achievements of his student days. What Rhodes got was his degree and some measure of refinement – though his rough edges would always show. He appears to have made few strong friendships there, and in his later career he seldom turned to his Oxford acquaintances for help in business or politics. Oxford did, however, help to increase his appetite for reading. In his later years he had a special taste for the classics. He constantly reread the works of Aristotle and the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. At great personal expense he paid for translations of many of the Latin works upon which Edward Gibbon had based his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. (This indicates his interest in history but also reveals that his knowledge of the classical languages was below that of the average Oxford student at that time.) After he returned to Africa he could often be seen sitting on a chair or rock, overseeing his mine workers, while deeply immersed in a book. Once when he was about to make a return trip to Britain he asked how long the voyage would take. When he was told twenty days, he hurried into a bookshop and purchased forty books-one for each morning and afternoon.⁷

Oxford also nurtured in Rhodes some of the ideas important in days, he hurried into a bookshop and purchased forty books-one for each morning and afternoon.⁷

Oxford also nurtured in Rhodes some of the ideas important in his later life. One of the most influential personages at the university in the 1870s and 1880s was John Ruskin, who used his position as Slade Professor of Fine Art to expound ideas not only on art, but politics, history, economics, and culture in general. In his celebrated Inaugural Address of 1870, Ruskin extolled the virtues and future prospects of the English:

There is a destiny now possible to us – the highest ever set before a nation to be accepted or refused. We are still an undegenerate race; a race mingled of the best northern blood. We are not yet dissolute in temper, but still have the firmness to govern, and the grace to obey…we are rich in an inheritance of honour, bequeathed to us through a thousand years of noble history…

And this is what she [Britain] must either do, or perish: she must found colonies as fast and as far as she is able, formed of her most energetic and worthiest men; – seizing every fruitful waste ground she can set her foot on, and there teaching these her colonists that their chief virtue is to be fidelity to their country, and that their first aim is to be to advance the power of England by land and sea….⁸

Some authors have claimed that Ruskin cast a spell over his eager disciple, Cecil Rhodes. The latter's connections with Ruskin, however, were probably slight or nonexistent.⁹ Moreover, Rhodes did not need to pick up such ideas directly from Ruskin, for similar notions were, almost literally, in the air – especially at Oxford. The university was one of the fountainheads of the spirit of “New Imperialism” that pervaded not only England but also France, Germany, Belgium, the United States, and other western powers from the 1870s until the First World War. Although rabid imperialists made up only a minority of the dons and students in Oxford, they were extremely vocal.¹⁰ Oxford graduates made up a disproportionate number of the men who staffed the colonial service in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. In addition to Ruskin, one of their chief spokesmen was Benjamin Jowett, Master of Balliol College from 1870 to 1893. Jowett often preached that he wanted to “inoculate” the world with Balliol men and “govern the world through my pupils.”¹¹

The motives and accomplishments of western imperialists of that era look suspect, if not downright evil, to us today. When Ruskin, Jowett, the mature Rhodes and others spoke of the “superior” British race and its need to expand by taking land from “inferior” races, we might today be struck by their similarities to Hitler. He too spoke of a master race and its need for “living space.” But the late nineteenth-century champions of empire never proposed the extermination of entire races of “inferior” peoples. Given the circumstances and the mentality of that period, the vast majority of the politicians, clergymen, business leaders, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens thought what they were doing was right.

Why did the British, French, Americans, and others rush to gain colonies, protectorates, and spheres of influence in all those parts of the world where they had not already gained control? There was a combination of factors. The major Western countries were the only ones that had entered into the Industrial Revolution by the late nineteenth century. This gave them the economic and military power to enforce their wills on “backward” societies. It also created a need to find additional markets around the world for their finished products and new sources of raw materials. The rapid economic growth of the major European powers and the United States likewise seemed to be a sign from God that Western civilization and Christianity were superior to all other cultures and religions. Added to this was Social Darwinism. Charles Darwin himself rejected the extension of his theories from biology to human history, but Herbert Spencer and many other philosophers and social scientists had no such misgivings. Social Darwinism permitted them to believe that the West not only had “might” but that this was “right.” Europeans and Americans had no reason to apologize for their “superiority.” The survival of the fittest was in the laws of nature instituted by God. Africans, Asians, and islanders in the Caribbean and Pacific would benefit from exposure to Western ideas and customs.

There were a few vehement critics of New Imperialism. Mark Twain bitterly attacked the American acquisition of the Philippines in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. He pilloried the high-sounding motives of the United States government as mere camouflage hiding naked conquest. In his book Imperialism, published in 1902, British author J.A. Hobson argued that the only people to benefit from empire were big businessmen in the mother countries. Quite prophetically he said that competition for empire would also lead to war between the major powers.¹²

The overwhelming majority of Europeans and Americans were staunch imperialists at least until the First World War. In 1899 Rudyard Kipling penned his poem “White Man's Burden,” written to urge the United States to acquire the Philippines. Young white men sent out to the colonies, said Kipling, were going into exile, where they served their “captives' need” rather than gaining wealth or fame for themselves. Native peoples, according to the poem, were wild, sullen, half-devil, half-child. As late as 1910, in its classic eleventh edition, the Encyclopedia Britannica claimed that the Vietnamese were “the worst-built and ugliest of all the Indo-Chinese who belong to the Mongolian race”; that Negroes were “easy going” and had no real hair, only wool; that “the Chinese character is inferior to the European”; that Haitians were “ignorant and lazy”; that Filipinos were “physical weaklings…with large clumsy feet”; and that Afghans were cruel and crafty.¹³

The First World War punctured inflated Western notions of self-importance and supremacy. The so-called rational West, with its elevated sense of fair play, its Christianity, and its economic progress, very nearly blew itself to smithereens. France, Britain, Germany, and several other countries were devastated economically, socially, and psychologically by the war. As a result of the carnage, the “roaring” Twenties was more a decade of disillusionment and anxiety than of prosperity or joy. These doubts about Western supremacy lay in the future, however, well beyond the life span of Cecil Rhodes.

In 1881 young Rhodes achieved two important goals: he won election to a seat in the all-white Cape Colony parliament and obtained his Oxford degree. Over the next fourteen years his exploits brought him not only enviable wealth and political power but also international notoriety. He would retain his parliamentary seat until his death. His business affairs included the manufacture and sale of ice, ice cream, and water pumps (necessities in mining). Through the early and mid-1880s, working with two partners, he ruthlessly bought out all of his rivals in the Kimberley mines. By the end of the decade his company, De Beers Consolidated Mining, controlled more than 90 percent of the world's diamond production. (Today the company still supplies over 80 percent.) In 1889 Rhodes obtained a royal charter for his British South Africa Company, which gave him almost unlimited authority to explore and settle the vast territories that he named Rhodesia. (In 1964 Northern Rhodesia became Zambia, and in 1980 Southern Rhodesia achieved independence as Zimbabwe.) He was also instrumental in Britain's acquisition of Bechuanaland (Botswana) and Nyasaland (Malawi). He nearly succeeded in wresting Mozambique from the Portuguese and the Congo (Zaire) from King Leopold of the Belgians. Once he bragged that he would annex the planets if he could. Altogether his acquisitions for the British Empire were equal in size to Western Europe (including Britain and Ireland). He almost achieved his goal of extending British control from the Cape to Cairo.

Meanwhile Rhodes expanded both his business and his political activities. After gold was discovered in the Transvaal's Witwatersrand in 1886, Rhodes formed the Consolidated Gold Fields of South Africa Company and won a large percentage of that industry. In 1890 he was appointed prime minister of the Cape of Good Hope Colony. Over the next five years he worked further to subdue the native tribes and to develop a modus vivendi with the Dutch.¹⁴

Until 1895 his career trajectory pointed ever upward. But then the infamous Jameson Raid brought a disgrace that would hound him until his premature death. Dr. Leander Starr Jameson was one of Rhodes' closest and most reliable associates. Rhodes entrusted him with engineering a secret raid into the Transvaal. The goal was to spark an uprising in Johannesburg that would topple the independent Dutch government of Paul Kruger. The result would be the elimination of any obstacles to Rhodes' control of the gold mines, plus the expansion of British control. The raid was a fiasco, with Jameson and many of his men being captured. Both at that time and today scholars debate the question of how much Rhodes and the British government in London knew about the raid in advance. Undoubtedly they knew its general outline, but whether they had tried to cancel or delay it remains shrouded in conflicting and vanished evidence.

At any rate, as prime minister in the Cape Rhodes was blamed for the debacle. He was forced to resign from office and to quit the board of the British South Africa Company. He retained his seat in the colonial parliament as well as his diamond and gold interests, but a cloud hung over his name thereafter.

There are deep ironies about the ignominy in which Rhodes spent his final years. He might have emerged a hero after the raid if the enterprise had succeeded. After all, successful revolutionaries usually become heroes; the unsuccessful ones are branded as rebels and traitors. Britain did want to expand its control over all of South Africa, either peacefully or by force. The Anglo-Boer War that eventually erupted in 1899 ended with British conquest of the independent Dutch states of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The 1895 raid thus was in harmony with general British aims. Nevertheless, the fact that it was premature and a disaster contributed to unfavorable press commentary around the world. The government in London thus repudiated both Jameson and Rhodes.

By the late 1890s Rhodes was a bloated, pasty mess. Years of smoking, drinking, and eating to excess, plus several falls from horses and a series of heart attacks dramatically altered his appearance. The news of his death, at the age of forty-eight, came as no surprise to anyone who knew him. His body was buried in the Rhodesian mountains, in a favorite spot of his called “The World's View.”

Historian David Cannadine has aptly concluded that “in an age of imperial titans, Rhodes was the most titanic imperialist of all.”¹⁵ Few of Rhodes' contemporaries or later writers would disagree about the magnitude of his accomplishments. Where they do differ markedly is in their evaluations of the man and his deeds. The passages quoted at the beginning of this chapter give some indication of the extremes of opinion. Rhodes generated love or hate, never ambivalence. To his friend Jameson and his architect Herbert Baker, he was the greatest man they had ever known. In their later writings they rhapsodized over his charisma, his charm, his vision, and his generosity. Upon the death of his friend and business associate, Lord Rothschild asserted that Rhodes:

…was a very great man, he saw things as no one else saw them and he foresaw things which no one else dreamt of…his great generosity bewitched those who came in contact with him…his loss would be irreparable, were it not for the fact that he put in motion ideas which have taken root, ideas firmly established…which will continue to grow and flourish.¹⁶

To others he was the devil incarnate. The great South African novelist and feminist Olive Schreiner went from liking and admiring Rhodes to despising him. She concluded that “the man's heart…is corrupt.”¹⁷ Novelist and essayist G. K. Chesterton believed that:

…Rhodes had no principles whatever to give to the world…. What he called his ideals were the dregs of Darwinism which had already grown not only stagnant, but poisonous…. it was exactly because he had no ideas to spread that he invoked slaughter, violated justice, and ruined republics to spread them.”¹⁸

Sometimes contemporaries could not even agree on his appearance and speech. The journalist Sydney Low knew Rhodes and once wrote that a belief in him “became a substitute for religion…[He was a talker] of more compelling potency than almost anyone.”¹⁹ Rudyard Kipling, on the other hand, lauded Rhodes' imperialist deeds but thought that the man was as inarticulate as a fifteen-year-old schoolboy.²⁰

Rhodes viewed himself as a dreamer, an idealist, and a loyal servant of the British Empire. He saw no conflict between his personal ambitions and what he perceived to be the general good. His earlier biographers tended to write either hagiographies or vituperative attacks. More recent authors have tended to portray him as an enigma or a bundle of contradictions. Foremost in this regard is Rotberg. His massive biography surely is definitive, despite objections to some of his interpretations.²¹ Rotberg concludes that Rhodes was a man “who served both god and mammon, who was as human, fallible, gentle, charismatic, and constructive as he was shameless, vain, driven, ruthless, and destructive.”²² Even in the midst of some of the most sinister episodes of his life, he was capable of accomplishing good deeds. As prime minister of the Cape Colony, for example, he worked ceaselessly for agricultural and transportation improvements. He also fought to preserve the simple yet impressive architecture of the early Dutch settlers from rampant Victorian garishness. Throughout his career he gave money or other assistance to numerous individuals, hospitals, and charities.

Somewhat controversially, Rotberg and his collaborator, psychiatrist Miles F. Shore, also posit a psychological interpretation of Rhodes' life. They assert that his tender affection for his doting mother and his alienation from a rather distant father instilled in the boy an Oedipus complex. Through his life, they contend, Rhodes unconsciously desired to conquer rivals whom he saw as father figures.

Going yet further, Rotberg and Shore demonstrate that Rhodes was homosexual. It has long been known not only that Rhodes was a bachelor, but also that he surrounded himself with attractive young men and became petulant whenever one of his “band of brothers” chose to marry. It is also known that Rhodes frequently shattered his “manly” demeanor with fits of falsetto giggles. His contemporaries never questioned his sexuality, but rather accepted his explanation that his career kept him too busy to have a family. Although Rotberg and Shore concede that Rhodes probably never became physically active in any gay relationships, they marshal a persuasive amount of circumstantial evidence to demonstrate their point. They argue that Rhodes' sexual orientation not only contributed to his choice of assistants but also that it was a driving force in much that he accomplished in his career. His feelings of inadequacy, as he compared himself to his emotionally remote and heterosexually potent father, fueled his narcissistic, grandiose ambitions.

Several reviewers have sharply disparaged Rotberg's and Shore's reliance on clinical jargon and their speculative leaps about Rhodes' motives. At the very least, however, one can agree with Rotberg and Shore that Rhodes was, and remains, a conundrum.

By the customs of his day he was not a “bad” man. In an age of robber barons and imperialists, most of his actions were acceptable. In one important respect, however, he did fall below contemporary standards – at least the standards of the British Empire. This concerns his treatment of blacks. To be sure, the vast majority of whites in Europe and the United States in that era agreed that Africans and Asians were inferior. Some held that this inferiority was biological. Others believed the inferiority was cultural, and thus that education and religious instruction could one day lift native peoples to a higher level-though not perhaps to the level of whites.

Though nearly all British people were racist to some degree, the official policy of the British Empire was, at least nominally, colorblind. In the Cape Colony, for example, the right to vote was based on property ownership. Anyone who met the minimum requirements was eligible to vote in colonial elections. In actual fact, few blacks and “coloreds” met these requirements. However, through the 1880s every electoral district in the Cape Colony had some blacks who could vote and some whites who could not. By the European standards of that day, the British Empire was fairly liberal.

As a member of the Cape Parliament and as prime minister, Rhodes worked assiduously to undercut black rights. In part this resulted from his own prejudices. He did not hate the Africans, but he thought they stood in the way of British progress. In part his actions were aimed at currying favor with Afrikaner constituents in his electoral district. The Dutch settlers had always objected to the color-blind British policy. One reason for this was that the Afrikaners tended to be poorer than the British. The small number of whites who could not vote thus tended to be the Dutch.

Rotberg persuasively demonstrates that Rhodes sided with the Afrikaners and helped lay the groundwork for the system of apartheid that took final shape in the late 1940s. In his diamond mines Rhodes callously reduced the wages and increased the hours of his black workers. He segregated them from white workers and made them carry passes. In 1887 Rhodes supported a new law that denied the vote to all persons with communal titles to land, which in effect eliminated all Africans. As prime minister he approved laws that distributed tiny, nontransferable tracts of land to Africans. Each farm was large enough to support only one family. The result was that the eldest sons inherited the property, whereas their younger siblings were forced to seek employment at white-owned mines and plantations. Repeatedly in his speeches Rhodes said that whites “are to be lords over them…The native is to be treated as a child.” He supported a law that permitted employers to flog their non-white laborers. As a young man he wrote back to his mother about how delightful it was to possess “land of your own, horses of your own, and shooting when you like and a lot of black niggers to do what you like with.”²³

In 1895 Rhodes and Jameson were recalled to Britain for an official investigation of the failed raid. Rhodes spent a weekend at his old college in Oxford. At breakfast one day he chatted with an undergraduate. The young man hoped for a career in law. Rhodes asked him if there were any “coloured men” studying for the bar. The youth replied that yes, there were, and that he liked them. Rhodes' gruff response was “Well, I don't. I suppose it is the instinct of self-preservation. In South Africa we have perhaps a million or two whites, and many millions more of black people.”²⁴

In short, when Rhodes boasted on numerous occasions that he wanted “equal rights for every civilised man” he did not intend for this to apply to blacks. Rotberg argues that Rhodes “introduced a basic realignment of black-white power relations” and produced a drastic “reordering of the prevailing psychological climate.”²⁵ To the extent that his policies foreshadowed apartheid, Rhodes contributed to the poisoned relations between blacks and whites in South Africa and neighboring countries that have lasted through this entire century.

Several politicians and writers both in the Cape and in London objected to Rhodes' racial policies. Yet the government failed to intervene. Prior to 1895 this was partly because he was so successful in expanding the empire that no one in power wanted to throw him off course. Moreover, after his disgrace, London wished to mollify Afrikaners in the Cape and Boers in the Transvaal; hence the lack of any movement to undo those racial policies favored by the Dutch.

Rhodes was not a man about whom one could be neutral. This was true in his own lifetime and remains so today. An eight-part BBC television series entitled “Rhodes,” first broadcast in Britain in the fall of 1996, aroused yet new debates. Some commentators found it even-handed, but others condemned it as blatantly one-sided. It is interesting to note, however, that the “one-sidedness” depended on one's point of view. Rhodes House Warden Anthony Kenny observed that “the benefit of every doubt was given against him [i.e., Rhodes]” and dismissed the series as “poorly scripted” and filled with “atrocious acting” and a “baffling” story line.²⁶ One historian who reviewed the series denounced it as revisionist muck-raking of the worst sort, because it portrayed Rhodes as a sadist, a sexual pervert, and a founding father of apartheid – rather than giving Rhodes his due as a commercial statesman and innovative colonizer. Another historian, however, asserted that the series is “almost too soft” and lets Rhodes off “too lightly.”²⁷

The Scholarships

What prompted this man of action to establish a program of scholarships at the University of Oxford? Just as controversy and mystery continue to surround the man himself, so too there are debates about his educational bequest.

The story begins in the 1870s with what one writer has called Rhodes' long series of “weird” wills.²⁸ Another author has called them his “spiritual autobiography.”²⁹ Rhodes wrote the first when he was 18 years old and the eighth and final one at age 46.³⁰ There is no need here to discuss the intricate twists and turns that occurred from one will to the next. All of them had in common a general vision. Rhodes believed that the English-speaking “race” was best suited to lead the world toward greater prosperity, happiness, and peace. He thus wished to promote union, or at least closer relations, among all English-speakers in order to foster this goal. The means to achieve this changed from one will to the next, but the underlying ideals remained constant.

Even while an undergraduate at Oxford Rhodes conceived himself to be a man of destiny. In 1877 he composed a revealing document called his “Confession of Faith.” In it he said that his goal in life would be to render himself useful to his country. He then explained that:

I have felt that at the present day we are actually limiting our children and perhaps bringing into the world half the human beings we might owing to the lack of country for them to inhabit, that if we had retained America there would at the present moment be many millions more of English living. I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimen of human beings, what an alteration there would be in them if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence.³¹

This confession, which Rotberg characterizes as a “jejune effervescence,” was largely incorporated into Rhodes' second will.³² In this same will Rhodes boldly expounded on his aims in these words:

The extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, The Holy Land, the valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the consolidation of the whole Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial Representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire, and finally the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.³³

The United States and vast stretches of the rest of the globe would not become colonies but rather independent members of a federal empire. To accomplish this task, Rhodes would leave all his wealth in the hands of a clandestine society made up of intelligent, energetic men who shared his vision. This secret club would be modeled on the Jesuits and the network of Masonic lodges. He hoped it would be “a church for the extension of the British Empire.”³⁴

Over the next fifteen years Rhodes continued to tinker with his plan, thereby creating new wills. The government officials or trusted friends whom he named as trustees also changed slightly from one document to the next. As his thinking evolved, the expansion of the British Empire gradually subsided in importance while the establishment of world peace grew. He came to believe that education was the best means for changing and improving the world. In 1891 he announced plans to establish a great new teaching residential university in the Cape Colony. Dutch and English students there would not only receive an education but would mix together socially; their friendships would contribute to greater harmony among the leaders of a united South Africa. In letters and speeches of the late 1880s and early 1890s he expressed doubts about the practicality of a secret society for furthering his aims. His sixth will, dated 1892, contains no mention of such a group.

The Jameson Raid and Rhodes' fall from power ended any hope for his South African university. By 1895, however, he had already concluded that such an institution would be too limited in scope-as it would affect only South Africa. Rhodes wanted to change the world. Already in his seventh will, in 1893, he had decided to establish Oxford scholarships for students from South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and other parts of the Empire. In doing this he was in all probability greatly influenced by the writings of two contemporaries: J. Astley Cooper, editor of a London weekly magazine, and Sir Thomas Hudson Beare, a South Australian who held academic posts both in London and Edinburgh. Borrowing ideas from them he asserted:

I consider that the education of young colonists at one of the Universities in Great Britain is of great advantage to them for giving breadth to their views, for their instruction in life and manners, and for instilling into their minds the advantages to the colonies as well as to England of the retention of the unity of the Empire.³⁵

The young scholars selected were to be all-round men, studious but also fond of outdoor sports. Moreover, they were to be chosen on the basis of moral character and leadership potential. This will marked a great turning point in Rhodes' thinking. There was no mention of a secret society or of any indoctrination of the students while they were in Oxford. Rhodes still believed in the virtues of unity among English-speaking peoples, but this did not necessarily have to come through any rigid, powerful imperial framework.

In 1899 he dictated his eighth and final will. There were to be two scholars from each state in the United States and twenty “colonials,” as he called them (three from Canada, six from Australia, five from South Africa, three from Rhodesia, and one each from New Zealand, Bermuda, and Jamaica.)³⁶ In a codicil of 1901 Rhodes added five annual scholarships for Germany. He considered the Germans to be a nordic, Anglo-Saxon race akin to the English. Rhodes also liked the Kaiser personally. Moreover, Wilhelm II had recently ordered English to be taught in all German schools. Given this token of friendship, plus the fact that Germany was nearly equal to Britain and the United States in economic and military power, Rhodes thought it best to join Germans with English-speakers in his great enterprise for world harmony. All of these students would be expected to remain in Oxford for three years, the normal span required to complete a B.A. degree.

The final will remains the basic document guiding the scholarship system. Whenever there is a question about how the program should be administered or how scholars should be chosen, everyone turns to the will to see what it says explicitly or to speculate about Rhodes' intentions.

The total value of Rhodes' estate was set at about £5 million, netting slightly under £4 million after death duties were deducted. At that time sterling was worth many times what it is today. (In 1997 the Trust's assets were worth approximately £150 million). Rhodes was wealthy, but his estate was modest compared to those of John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and other American “robber barons.” Undoubtedly the size of his bequest would have been much larger if not for other factors. In the last dozen years of his life he devoted his attentions as much to politics as to private business affairs. He died too young to gain any returns on the vast amounts he invested in developing Rhodesia.

To oversee all the prescriptions of the will, Rhodes created what has come to be called the Rhodes Trust. The initial trustees whom he selected included distinguished elder statesmen, one of his closest business partners, his friend Jameson, his banker, and his lawyer. The Rhodes Trust continues to operate today. Over the decades it has included prominent politicians, academics, writers (including Rudyard Kipling), and persons from a variety of other professions.

Though the scholarships constitute the most famous part of the will, Rhodes also made other bequests. For example, he donated his stately residence at Groote Schuur (outside Cape Town) to the government of South Africa as an official residence for future prime ministers. He allocated £100,000 for Oriel College. That was a small part of his total estate but sufficient to raise faculty salaries and construct the formidable Rhodes Building that today still looms on Oxford's main street, “The High.” Rhodes would be pleased to see it. Far above the central doorway is a large statue of Rhodes himself looking benevolently downward. Below him, to his left and right, are statues of King George V and King Edward VII.

The will gave great leeway to the trustees in the discretionary disbursement of any excess funds not needed for the scholarships. Over succeeding decades the trustees have used this discretionary power to give millions of pounds to the Oxford colleges and libraries and to the university as a whole. The Trust has also endowed several chairs and created special lectureships.

Nevertheless, the scholarships were the central feature of the will. Rhodes chose Oxford because it was his alma mater, but also because it was the oldest and still one of the best universities in the English-speaking world. He also liked its system of residential colleges. Oxford, like the “other” place (Cambridge) was not so much a university as a confederation of small, independent colleges. In his day there were twenty men's colleges in Oxford, each with between one hundred and three hundred students. In the small, enclosed atmosphere of one's college a student gained an education. Equally important, however, were the close, lasting friendships that one formed. Rhodes wanted future leaders from around the world to mix with future British leaders, thereby ensuring a united effort for peace and prosperity.

As formulated in his final will, Rhodes listed four main criteria to be used in selecting candidates:

My desire being that the students who shall be elected to the scholarships shall not be merely bookworms I direct that in the election of a student to a Scholarship regard shall be had to

1. his literary and scholastic attainments

2. his fondness of and success in manly outdoor sports such as cricket, football and the like

3. his qualities of manhood, truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness unselfishness and fellowship

4. his exhibition during school days of moral force of character and of instincts to lead and to take an interest in his schoolmates for those latter attributes will be likely in afterlife to guide him to esteem the performance of public duties as his highest aim.

What made these scholarships extraordinary was that they were to be based not just on academic merit but on other criteria as well. Rhodes hoped that those doing the evaluating would use good judgment and intuition in spotting candidates who had a special spark of character and greatness. To guide selectors, Rhodes provided a gauge for the importance of each of the four criteria he listed. In the final tally for every candidate, 3/10 should go for scholarship, 2/10 for manly sports, 3/10 for concern about one's fellow human beings, and 2/10 for character and leadership.

As will become clear in the chapters that follow, Rhodes' criteria and his arithmetical marking system were anything but clear to future selection committees. What, for example, did one mean by “manly outdoor sports” or “public service?” Obviously, Rhodes wanted multi-talented, energetic, forceful leaders who would somehow make the world a better place. However, the precise formula for selecting such persons would be open to discussion.

What were Rhodes' motives in establishing the scholarships? He himself claimed that he wanted to produce men who would use their Oxford education and friendships to create world harmony and progress. Some authors have scoffed at this, saying that he did it purely for public relations and for eternal fame. As early as 1891 he told a friend “I find I am human and should like to be living after my death.” At another time he wrote that he wanted to “leave a monument to posterity which shall convince mankind that [I] had really lived.”³⁷ Very probably, as with so much else in his life, he did it for a combination of altruistic and selfish reasons.

Rhodes' interest in manly vigor, sports, and energetic Anglo-Saxon leadership was something that he shared with several other world leaders of that era. The two most famous were Theodore Roosevelt and Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany. Like Rhodes, Roosevelt was considered to be a sickly child; his adventures as a cowboy, a

Rough Rider, and an African hunter may have meant for him what South African conquests signified for Rhodes. Roosevelt preached the cult of masculinity in several of his books, especially The Strenuous Life. Wilhelm II had a deformed left arm. Many authorities have concluded that the Kaiser's zeal to compensate for this handicap contributed to his dismissal of Bismarck, his drive to build up the German navy, and his imperialistic dreams.

Rhodes' stipulation that the scholarships were for men only was sexist, but perfectly acceptable by standards of his day. In 1900 if one spoke of well-educated leaders in government and other fields, one was speaking almost exclusively of men. In 1902 no women's groups in the United States or elsewhere protested their ineligibility for the scholarships. Not until the 1970s would there arise a strong movement to alter this part of the will.

Another interesting clause in the will is the one stating that neither “race or religious opinions” should be a factor in the selection process. Within just a few years after the publication of the will the question arose as to whether blacks were eligible. The trustees cited this clause and decided that blacks indeed could be appointed. In doing so the trustees and selection committees violated what they all probably knew were Rhodes' intentions. Like most of his contemporaries, Rhodes often used the word “race” to mean what we today would take for “culture” or “nation.” When he put this clause in his will he intended to indicate that the Dutch and British “races” in South Africa and the American and German “races” could all enjoy his scholarships. He never expected that blacks would apply, much less be selected. Sir Edgar Williams, who for nearly three decades served as warden of Rhodes House in Oxford, has aptly stated that Rhodes built “better than he knew.”³⁸ The trustees were able to follow the letter rather than the spirit of the law to make the scholarships more inclusive than their founder had anticipated.

The current warden of Rhodes House, Sir Anthony Kenny, has provided perhaps the best analysis of the seeming contradictions between Rhodes the man and the scholarships he established. In his speech at Georgetown University during a reunion of North American Rhodes Scholars in 1993, Kenny said that, apart from the stress on “manliness,” the four criteria Rhodes listed for his scholars “are to this day valuable and important human qualities.” Rhodes wanted evidence of high scholastic attainments, yet he himself required eight years to obtain a mere pass degree. He demanded physical vigor, as manifested in sports. Yet while at Oriel he was undistinguished in athletics. Though he showed much stamina through his career, his health was always a matter of some concern. Rhodes was one of the greatest entrepreneurs of all time, and yet there was no mention of entrepreneurship among the qualities he sought in his candidates. Instead, he wanted sympathy for, and protection of, the weak. He was an unabashed believer in the superiority of the English race, and yet he said race should play no part in the selection process. Finally, although he himself promoted more than one avoidable war, he declared his ultimate goal to be the pursuit of world peace through the international sharing of education.

In short, we might disagree about Rhodes' motives and actions. But, as Kenny concluded, we can admire that fact that “he was certainly not the man to believe that the way to make the world a better place was to make everyone else just like himself.”³⁹

NOTES

^1. Robert I. Rotberg, The Founder: Cecil Rhodes and the Pursuit of Power (New York, 1988), 74, 78, 658–62, 675–77.

^2. See G.N. Clark, Cecil Rhodes and His College (Oxford, 1953), 7; and Rotberg, The Founder, 86–87.

^3. Rotberg, The Founder, 89.

^4. Oxford Magazine, 13 (23 January 1895): 167.

^5. Quoted in Clark, Cecil Rhodes, 5.

^6. Ibid.

^7. Ronald Currey, Cecil Rhodes: A Biographical Footnote (private printing, 1946), 11–12.

^8. Quoted in Frank Aydelotte, The American Rhodes Scholarships: A Review of the First Forty Years (Princeton, 1946), 3.

^9. Rotberg, The Founder, 94–95.

^10. See Richard Symonds, Oxford and Empire: The Last Lost Cause? (Oxford, 1991), passim.

^11. Ibid., 27–29.

^12. J.A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study (London, 1902).

^13. Hans Konig, “The Eleventh Edition,” The New Yorker, 2 March 1981, 74. For a brief introduction to this entire topic see Michael Howard, “Empire, Race & War in pre-1914 Britain,” History Today, 31 (December 1981): 4–11.

^14. For Rhodes' career in Africa, Rotberg's The Founder supersedes all earlier biographies. Also see Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The Randlords: The Exploits and Exploitations of South Africa's Mining Magnates (New York, 1986).

^15. David Cannadine, review of Rotberg, The Founder, in The New Republic, 19 December 1988, 34.

^16. Rotberg, The Founder, p. 678.

^17. Ibid., 403.

^18. G.K. Chesterton, A Miscellany of Men (London, 1912), 203–04.

^19. Rotberg, The Founder, 5.

^20. George Shepperson, “Cecil John Rhodes: Some Biographical Problems,” South African Historical Journal, 15 (1983): 55.

^21. Like Rhodes himself, Rotberg's book is a flawed colossus. See the following perceptive reviews: that of David Cannadine cited in n. 15 above; J.D.F. Jones in Financial Times, 6 May 1989, weekend section, xii; Geoffrey Wheatcroft, in New York Times, 1 January 1989, sec. 7, 4; Conor Cruise O'Brien, in Atlantic Monthly, December 1988, 92–95; T.R.H. Davenport, in South African Historical Journal, 21 (1989): 95–100; David Alexander in TAO, 76 (1989): 132–43.

^22. Rotberg, The Founder, 679.

^23. Quoted in Rotberg, The Founder, 44. Throughout his book Rotberg deals extensively with Rhodes' racial attitudes and policies.

^24. Quoted in Clark, Cecil Rhodes, 7.

^25. Rotberg, The Founder, 361.

^26. Warden's Christmas letter, December 1996, 10.

^27. Daily Mail, 10 September 1996, 8; Sunday Times, 15 September 1996, section 10, 4; Times Literary Supplement, 11 October 1996, 22. Expanding on the script he wrote for the television series, Antony Thomas has published a balanced, solid book for the general public: Rhodes: The Race for Africa (London, 1996). Shortened to six hours, the mini-series was first aired on PBS in the United States early in 1998.

^28. Christopher Hitchens, Blood, Class, and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies (New York, 1990), 298.

^29. Aydelotte, American Rhodes Scholarships, 1.

^30. Earlier authors who studied the wills counted seven of them. For example, see Sir Francis J. Wylie in TAO, 31 (1944): 129–38. Rotberg shows that there were eight. Prior to the seven that can be found today in Rhodes House, there was an earlier one, dated 1871. Unfortunately, no copy of that one has survived. See The Founder, 74, 662–67, 700 n.39.

^31. Quoted in Aydelotte, American Rhodes Scholarships, 4.

^32. Rotberg, The Founder, 680.

^33. For extensive discussions of the wills see Aydelotte, American Rhodes Scholarships, 1–19; Wylie, TAO, 31 (1944): 65–69, 129–38, and 32 (1945): 1–11; Rotberg, The Founder, 101–2, 663-68.

^34. Aydelotte, American Rhodes Scholarships, 8.

^35. Aydelotte, American Rhodes Scholarships, 14.

^36. Rhodes' will granted two scholarships to Canada and one to Newfoundland. The latter was still a separate British territory and did not officially become a Canadian province until 1949.

^37. Quoted in Rotberg, The Founder, 663.

^38. Williams in TAO, 81 (1994): 12.

^39. TAO, 80 (1993): 245.