Science Technology and Innovation in The History of Economic Thought Estrella Trincado Aznar All Chapter
Science Technology and Innovation in The History of Economic Thought Estrella Trincado Aznar All Chapter
Science Technology and Innovation in The History of Economic Thought Estrella Trincado Aznar All Chapter
Series Editors
Avi J. Cohen
Department of Economics
York University and University of Toronto
Toronto, ON, Canada
Peter Kriesler
School of Economics
University of New South Wales
Sydney, NSW, Australia
Jan Toporowski
Economics Department
SOAS University of London
London, UK
Science, Technology
and Innovation in the
History of Economic
Thought
Editors
Estrella Trincado Aznar Fernando López Castellano
Department of Applied Economics, Department of Applied Economics
Structure and History University of Granada
Complutense University of Madrid Granada, Spain
Madrid, Spain
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2023
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
1 Introduction 1
Estrella Trincado Aznar and Fernando López Castellano
2 Some
Misconceptions Regarding Innovation (and How
Reading Classical Authors Might Help Overcoming Them) 17
Thomas Baumert
3 Invention,
Institutional Change, and Economic
Development: From Scottish Enlightenment to the IPE 31
Estrella Trincado Aznar and Fernando López Castellano
4 The
Pre-Schumpeterian Concept of Innovation: Friedrich
List and Two Pioneer Contemporaries 59
Pablo José Martínez Rojo
5 Technoscientific
Rationality and Capitalist Accumulation.
Transhumanism as Alienation in Marx’s Humanist
Approach 87
Baruc Jiménez Contreras
v
vi Contents
6 Energy
Efficiency, Productivity and the Jevons Paradox109
Estrella Trincado Aznar and José María Vindel
7 Max
Weber: Science, Technology and Vocation139
Alfredo Macías Vázquez
8 The
Age of Innovation: More Schumpeter than Keynes159
Manuel Santos Redondo
9 The
Crisis of the Neoclassical Framework and the
Schumpeterian Echo in the Current Paradigm of the
Economic Analysis of Technological Change179
Antonio García Sánchez, Luis Palma Martos, and Ignacio
Martínez Fernández
10 On
the Capital Controversies as a Choice of Paradigms207
Ramiro E. Álvarez and Jose A. Pérez-Montiel
11 Technology
and the Labour Market: Technological
Unemployment as a Historical Debate229
Elena Gallego Abaroa
12 Humanity
Is Facing Its Sustainability: Will Technological
Progress Make the Future Unsustainable?241
Javier Arribas Cámara
13 Why
Inventions Fail to Become Innovation? Some
Examples from Spain and Italy257
Juan Francisco Galán
Contents vii
Part IV Conclusion 269
14 Conclusion271
Estrella Trincado Aznar and Fernando López Castellano
Index281
Notes on Contributors
ix
x NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
xv
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
recently insisted that the creation of new ideas in human minds, “innova-
tionism”, has been ignored by economists. Precisely therein lies, in her
view, the success of the Netherlands and Britain: liberalization at the level
of ideas favoured a culture of a certain freedom of expression and a rather
energetic entrepreneurial economy. Besides, economists have debated on
who is to be praised or blamed for promoting innovation and change, they
argue if this change is positive or deleterious to welfare or social cohesion,
and they give advices on the type of legislation needed to promote or
hamper innovation and science. Science is one of the most important
channels of knowledge and it seems to be for the benefit of society, creat-
ing technology, new knowledge, improving education, and increasing the
quality of our lives. However, knowledge economy is a complex non-lin-
ear process of technological innovation. Besides, some countries go
towards the service economy where knowledge seems to be not a product
of scientific research, but a creative activity. This requires reconsideration
of the role of scientific research and technological innovation in both ser-
vice and industrial sectors.
Science must respond to societal needs and global challenges and in the
last analysis, it is a not intended cause of new troubles. The history of eco-
nomics can contribute to the debate about the place that science and tech-
nology must have on our present understanding of progress. At present,
the relationship between technological change and institutional develop-
ment constitutes one of the main axes of debate and urgent research top-
ics. We face climate change, hate discourse in social networks, technological
unemployment, and there is a debate on the impact artificial intelligence
or green technology have on human life and life on the planet. This vol-
ume contributes to enlarging the conversation and pointing to relevant
controversies on these issues in the past and the present. It both brings
new elements found in past thinkers and illuminates present debates with
past ideas.
Most of the contributions of history of economic thought to econom-
ics of innovation deal with the importance of the French Economist
School, based on the concept of the entrepreneur as defined by Cantillon.
For sure, the Irish economist Richard Cantillon, in Essay on the Nature of
Trade in General published in French in 1755, identified the nature of the
entrepreneur. He defined this concept as the agent who buys the means of
production at certain prices and combines them in an orderly manner to
obtain a new product which he will sell at an uncertain price. So, he was a
forerunner of the notion of innovation, which he bases on the production
1 INTRODUCTION 3
or distribution for the search for a monetary profit. In this line of thought,
other scholars stress the neglect in classical economics of Jean Baptiste
Say’s theory of the entrepreneur, which may be related to the Austrian
economics view of innovation. All these debates are not emphasized in this
volume, precisely because science and technology pretend to avoid, not
assume, uncertainty and, so, they try to provide an intellectual grasp to
link the present to the future. Besides, the scholarship on innovation based
on the French Economist School has constructed the paradigm of a
favourable view of innovation, based on individual action which goes
along with progress. This book tries to go beyond this linear perspective
and gives new food for thought on the relationship between science, tech-
nology, and innovation in the history of economics.
Actually Joseph Schumpeter, considered the “father of entrepreneur-
ship”, in the Theory of Economic Development, which first appeared in
1911, stressed that capitalism is a dynamic process of wealth creation and
change, driven by innovation, not routine. He established that the destruc-
tiveness of capitalism is inseparable from its creativity. However,
Schumpeter was not an absolute non-interventionist, such as members of
the Austrian School of Economics, and his theory of entrepreneurship
significantly differs from that of Israel Kirzner, an Austrian economist who
abundantly deals with the topic of innovation. This is particularly apparent
in Schumpeter’s argument that entrepreneurial activity is characteristic of
both market and non-market economies. Within the model of
Schumpeterian competition, Nelson and Winter add a treatment of a
“cumulative technology”, in which the expected outcome of innovation is
a function of the firm’s current level of productivity.
The relationship between innovation, changes in market structure, and
the broader evolution of an industry has been studied starting from differ-
ent histories, specific cases and empirical evidence of given sectors or firms,
characterized by routines and capabilities. Firms find patents effective only
in a limited set of innovations and in a small number of industrial sectors.
In this sense, Marshall’s analysis of economic development includes the
organizing roles of firms and industries, the connection of the representa-
tive firm to population, and the nature of firms as accumulations of knowl-
edge and capital. He studies this especially in relation to scientific
management and the reduction of the unit costs of production either
internal to a firm or external and residing in an industry or market. Internal
organization reflects the risky efforts of firms, and especially managers,
and so organization is a distinct type of productive factor. All this
4 E. TRINCADO AZNAR AND F. LÓPEZ CASTELLANO
and technology. But Schumpeter was one of the economists that most
stressed the relevance of technology in the economic process. Capital
accumulation depends on profits, interest rate, and stock of capital, and
technology depends on the innovation process (that is, technological
progress and/or discovery of new resources). Schumpeter considered that
entrepreneur activity relies on profits and “social climate”, that is, the
sociological-economics-institutional aspects of the society. While Keynes
tends to reduce the explanation of unemployment to specific “malfunc-
tionings” of the labour market, Schumpeter’s notions of temporary and
cyclical technological unemployment refer to creative destruction as an
economy-wide disequilibrium process. At first, Schumpeter considered
the entrepreneur as a superior man; finally, he cuts expectations talking
about the function of the entrepreneur, which may be performed by
groups, corporations, or countries. The routinization of innovation by
corporations will make no room for reward for entrepreneurial aptitude.
According to Manuel Santos, the quarter century after World War II
was certainly “the age of Keynes”, in both economic theory and policy.
During the Great Depression, or at least in the first years, most economists
believed that the crisis will be over without large government interven-
tion, but Keynesian stabilization policy seemed to be good for the public,
the politicians, and the corporations. Then “liquidationists” began to be
in retreat. However, in the 1980s, there was the rise of Schumpeter and
his concept of the “creative destruction”. Manuel Santos discusses the
evolution of his ideas on innovation, entrepreneurship, and creative
destruction and what happened in the 1980s to make the last quarter of
the twentieth century the “Era of Schumpeter”. In macroeconomics and
in political and academic influence, Friedman and the Chicago School
were very much the winners against Keynesianism, together with Hayek.
The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union reinforced
that tendency. But together with this battle of ideas, American industry
faced competition from Japan and East Asia through technological inno-
vation. And in the 1980s, innovation economics, in several schools,
became the main issue for economist and economic policy. Their aim was
to provide an innovation policy, to build an innovation system, with an
important role for the government, which can be considered an
entrepreneur.
In Chap. 9, “The Crisis of the Neoclassical Framework and the
Schumpeterian Echo in the Current Paradigm of the Economic Analysis
of Technological Change”, Antonio García Sánchez, Luis Palma Martos,
1 INTRODUCTION 11
were anomalies not easily assimilated into the marginalism paradigm; but
there was a (partial) assimilation that entailed the flexibilization of some of
the commitments around which the neoclassical normal research was
structured.
In Chap. 11, “Technology and Labour Market. Technological
Unemployment as a Historical Debate”, Elena Gallego makes a broad
sweep on the debates on technological unemployment. She makes classical
economists discuss with current economists to find possible future sce-
narios and search for alternative solutions. The fear of the creative destruc-
tion of technological progress begun in the sixteenth century, when Queen
Elizabeth showed concern with the English population displacement from
their jobs which might threaten her political power. From then, techno-
logical unemployment was explained in a Ricardian sense: a process of
change that is reabsorbed over time. Classical economics, and its neoclas-
sical heirs, assumed the hypothesis of price and wage flexibility that tends
to balance markets; however, in the Keynesian perspective, with rigid
prices and wages, economies did not return to the path of growth.
Technology was for all of them an exogenous variable; only Joseph
Schumpeter describes it as endogenous to the system, considering the pos-
sibility that monopolistic competition is more efficient than perfect com-
petition in driving the innovative process of the economic cycle and
producing greater job creation than job destruction, with a net posi-
tive effect.
In Chap. 12, “Humanity Is Facing Its Sustainability: Will Technological
Progress Make the Future Unsustainable?” Javier Arribas Cámara
talks from the contemporary speech about an innovation that allows us to
meet basic human needs rather than encouraging over-consumption and
waste. He considers digitalization an ally of sustainability in several ways.
But to achieve sustainability, a holistic approach is needed that considers
the interaction between the economy, the environment, and the society.
In this sense, technology can play a pivotal role in the quest for sustain-
ability; however, more than technology is needed to achieve sustainability.
The chapter discusses how advances in artificial intelligence and comput-
ing face physical and energy constraints, leading scientists to look to biol-
ogy for inspiration to design more efficient and sustainable computing
systems. Finally, it examines the growing concern over data centre energy
consumption and carbon footprint, exploring innovative solutions, such as
installing data centres in space to take advantage of low temperatures and
reduce energy consumption. Rapid accumulation of e-waste represents an
1 INTRODUCTION 13
Classical contributions
CHAPTER 2
Thomas Baumert
2.1 Introduction
The economics of innovation has deserved throughout the last decades a
preferential attention both by academics and policymakers, derived from
the broad consensus about the crucial role that innovation plays as a driver
of economic growth, especially in the most advanced economies.1 As a
result, we find that most economic leaders—be it on the national, regional,
or municipal scale—bet on their speeches on innovation; that most com-
panies define themselves as innovators and, while the term innovation has
also penetrated the consumer base, that a significant number of
1
Classified by organizations such as the World Economic Forum as “innovation driven.”
T. Baumert (*)
Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
2
Curiously enough, the Proto-Germanic root (neuva) has a very a similar sound to the
Latin nova.
2 SOME MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING INNOVATION (AND HOW READING… 19
After Tertullian, the term innovatio spread quickly. Centuries later,3 its
use might be found both in the works of Saint Augustine of Hippo
(354–430 CE), of Saint Albertus Magnus (1200–1280 CE) and of Saint
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 CE), to highlight just three. Hence, the
former writes in De moribus ecclesiae catholicae:
While in the latter’s Suma Teológica (in the chapter entitled “De Dei
Aeternitate”) the following quote is to be found:
It becomes clear that the early use of the word innovation—nota bene
that this “early” extends to a period of nearly a millennium—which had
not been used in classical Latin, appeared mainly in texts of religious con-
tents and, hence, with a meaning very different from the current one.
From then on, the term became consolidated in all Romance languages.
The following quotes picked out of the most outstanding works of the
Renaissance might serve as examples.
3
We are aware of the huge lapse of time but did not want to expand this section with too
many examples.
20 T. BAUMERT
Thus, the father of the Italian language, Dante Aligheri writes in the
(Divina) Comedia (chant XXXII of the “Purgatorio”):
El príncipe prudente gobierna su estado sin innovar las costumbres. [The pru-
dent Prince governs his State without innovating its customs].
At nearly the same time, the word innovation was adopted in English
and spread through British literature. Again, a few quotes from selected
authors might serve to support our thesis.
4
Often another extract taken out of Machiavelli’s Il Principe (Chapter VI) which is often
quoted (as it serves as a piece of advice to all innovators) reads:
And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand,
more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the
introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those
who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who
may do well under the new.
However, it should be noted that—strictly speaking—the original Italian text does not
employ the word innovatore but introductore [introductor].
2 SOME MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING INNOVATION (AND HOW READING… 21
As the births of living creatures, at first are illshapen, so are all innovations,
which are the births of time.
And later:
Surely every medicine is an innovation; and he that will not apply new rem-
edies, must expect new evils; for time is the greatest innovator [..]
5
Coriolanus has the distinction of being among the few Shakespeare plays banned in a
democracy in modern times. It was briefly suppressed in France in the late 1930s because of
its use by the “fascist” element, and prohibited in Post-War Germany due to its intense
militarism.
6
Entry “innovation.”
22 T. BAUMERT
It were good, therefore, that men in their innovations would follow the
example of time itself; which indeed innovateth greatly, but quietly, by
degrees scarce to be perceived.
And also, in which might be considered the first historical novel, Walter
Scott’s Waverley (published in 1814) we read:
The others, whose time had been more actively employed, began to shew
symptoms of innovation—“the good wine did its good office”. (Chapter XI)
7
Although the German translation was not published until 1961.
8
This section summarizes the broader analysis presents in Gutiérrez-Rojas and Baumert
(2018, 2019).
2 SOME MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING INNOVATION (AND HOW READING… 23
Schumpeter also ensures that the socialist system can be (in the best case)
as efficient as the free-market capitalist system, because—simplifying its
argument—the tendency to the concentration of capitalism leads to large
corporations becoming bureaucratic, “strangulating” any innovative and
entrepreneurial spirit that made them grow in a moment, leading them to
a situation of stagnation. In this sense, the concession made by Schumpeter
to the R&D departments of large corporations as advantageous for inno-
vation in the so-called MARK II model, must be taken cum grano salis.
Instead, it has served to give a Schumpeterian veneer to the concept of
innovation system.
The concept of “Innovation System” developed in the context of evo-
lutionary economics, reflects the process of division of labor in the field of
innovation with the corresponding participation of a broad set of interre-
lated agents and institutions, whose activities should generate synergies or
save costs, according to the central postulates exposed by Adam Smith. It
was first presented by Freeman (1987), to be followed by Nelson (1993)
and Lundvall (1992), all mentioning List (1841) as a forerunner.
In this vision, the innovation is an increasingly complex and interdisci-
plinary activity, so, a priori, it could be assumed that its development
requires the interaction of a large number of institutions, organizations,
and specialized firms. The advantages of the division of labor apply to the
concept of Innovation System in the same way described by Smith, under-
standing each single workman like an individual actor of the system (firms,
universities, public agencies, etc.):
Among men […] the most dissimilar geniuses are of use to one another; the
different produces of their respective talents, by the disposition to truck,
barter, and exchange, being brought, as it were, into a common stock,
2 SOME MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING INNOVATION (AND HOW READING… 25
where every man may purchase whatever part of the produce of other men’s
talents, he has occasion for. (Smith, Idem)
The making of the invention and the carrying out of the corresponding
innovation are, economically and sociologically, two entirely different
things. They may, and often have been, performed by the same person; but
this is merely a chance coincidence which does not affect the validity of the
distinction [...although they might, of course, interact...] invention and
26 T. BAUMERT
innovation are entirely different things, not uniquely related to each other,
and that only confusion can result from trying to analyze economic pro-
cesses in terms of the former..9
Thus, once inventions and innovations have been delimited and sepa-
rated and, consequently, the processes that lead to one and another,
namely research versus innovation, we can conclude that, while the inven-
tion can be systematized—and, therefore, it benefits from a division
between Smithian-type agents—this is not the case of innovation which,
according to Schumpeter’s postulates, would be usually spontaneous, that
is, not systematic.
From the above, a series of conclusions are derived that are worth being
analyzed more closely. First, it should be noted that the concept of an
innovation system as a regime in which different agents are divided and
specialized in different tasks—in line with Smith’s division of labor postu-
lates—interacting with each other, has now become diluted. This approach,
in any case, can be applied to the field of R&D, but not to innovation.
Consequently, it would be more appropriate to talk about (national or
regional) R&D systems. In this way, the spontaneity and creativity of
innovation is stressed instead of being “lost in the system.”
Also, that the disarticulation between the R&D, innovation, and eco-
nomic growth might lie in a wrong design of the policies of impulse to the
innovation, which is the result of a misconception of innovation—instead
of R&D—as a systemic process based on a division of labor in a Smithian
sense. As a more efficient alternative, we propose a model based on purely
Schumpeterian postulates, which will turn innovation into the center of
the productive process. For this, it is crucial to understand that although
R&D is systemic—and, therefore, it makes sense to speak of a national or
regional R&D system—innovation is, in general, a spontaneous process,
that is, fruit largely due to chance and, consequently, not systematic.
Accordingly, the use of the confusing term “innovation system” should be
discarded.
9
Schumpeter (1939, p. 84 and p. 272). This interrelation was explained some years ago
with surprising—for simple—precision by the then Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho—
whose country was then among the leading nations in terms of technological innovation—
indicating that “research is to invest money to obtain knowledge; to innovate is to invest
knowledge to obtain money.”
2 SOME MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING INNOVATION (AND HOW READING… 27
10
Which Schumpeter himself cites as an example of an innovative entrepreneur
(Schumpeter, 1939, p. 272).
28 T. BAUMERT
2.5 Conclusions
The present chapter has overviewed three topics of discussion regarding
innovation on which re-reading the works by classical authors (also, but
not exclusively economists!) might shed new light. First, we have dealt
with the genesis and evolution of the word innovation, which only recently
acquired the positive value that we associate nowadays with it. The second
critically discussed the innovation-system framework, arguing that innova-
tion might in fact—according to Schumpeter’s concept of the term—be
systematical to a much lower degree than commonly expected. Replacing
the “innovation system” approach by a “Research & Development” one
might represent a more efficient and realistic analytical framework. Finally,
we have questioned who actually innovates, as there are many historical
examples that show that innovation—not invention—did take place out-
side the R&D-circle. Of course, we are aware that even a high number of
examples is not enough to set a principle. But we believe that it might
justify further exploring the question. And we also believe that when dis-
cussing topics as the ones exposed here, it is fruitful not only to rely on
empirical analyses, but also to look back at “the giants on top of whose
shoulders we are standing.”
References
Bhide, A. (2000). The Origins and Evolution of New Businesses. Oxford
University Press.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technical Innovation, Diffusion, and Long Cycles of
Economic Development. In The Long – Wave Debate (pp. 295–309). Springer.
Gutiérrez-Rojas, C., & Baumert, T. (2018). Smith, Schumpeter y el estudio de los
sistemas de innovación. Economía y política, 5(1), 93–111.
2 SOME MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING INNOVATION (AND HOW READING… 29
3.1 Introduction
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution in eighteenth century, many
economists have extolled the need for constant innovation; however, many
others have pointed out the risks of innovation. Jeremy Bentham started
this debate when he published his letter to Adam Smith in 1787 under the
title Defence of usury. For Bentham (1787), usury or the high rate of inter-
est, fosters innovation, since the innovative and the saver spirits arise from
different inclinations that do not have to come together in the same
CARABAS’S STORY
“There is no doubt,” he said “that as truly as some men are born
without a palate, so some men are born without luck. It is no use
trying to remedy the deficiency; it is well, rather, to study to reconcile
oneself to it.
“I was born in an English village, of naturalized Huguenot parents.
When I was nineteen, I fell passionately in love. I had for a rival a
youth very strong and unscrupulous. One day he persuaded me to
bathe with him in the river, then swollen with floods. In mid-stream he
pounced upon me, and strove to bear me under. I struggled
desperately—it was of no avail. Death thundered in my ears; the
water enwrapped and proceeded to swallow me. The last thing I saw
was a figure gesticulating and shouting on the bridge a little way
above; then consciousness fled, and I sank. I came to myself,
stranded somewhere in a dark channel. A mad face was bending
over me. I knew it—it was that of the miller. I had been carried into
his race, and, just short of the wheel, he had caught and dragged me
to shore. He was a drunkard, of that I was aware; and he was now
quite demented.
“ ‘Mordieu!’ he said, ‘I see what you’ve come for, and the devil
shan’t call twice for his own.’
“I understood instantly. He meant himself to go with me into the
water—to join issues with the devil who had called for him, and have
a fine frolic into eternity with his visitor. Terror lent me strength. I
caught at a post, and, as he leaned down, shot my whole body at
him like a spring. He went over with a splash, and I heard the wheel
hitch, then begin to turn again, chewing its prey. O, my friends, what
a situation! I lay like one damned, a thousand dreadful reflections
mastering me. I should be accused, if caught, of murdering this man.
That terror quite devoured the other, and increased with every
moment that I lay. Darkness came upon me, and then I rose and
fled. I thought of nothing but to escape; and so, stealing always by
night, I reached London.
“Now, I will tell you the irony of this destiny. Many weeks later I
read, by chance, in a newspaper, how my rival had been granted
your Royal Humane Society’s testimonial, on the evidence of a
casual spectator, for a brave but unsuccessful attempt to save me
from drowning; and how the little pretty romance had terminated with
his marriage to the admiring object of our two regards. So I was
dead; and, as long as I lay in my nameless grave—for my body, it
appeared, had never been recovered—the ghost of my fear was laid.
I do not complain, therefore. Yet—ah, mademoiselle, most
condescending of sympathizers!—she had been very dear to me.”
Here Carabas found it necessary to console my Campaspe before
he could go on.
“I obtained work—under an assumed name, of course—and for
many years found at least a living in that immense capital. I had an
aptitude for languages, which was my great good fortune; yet
prosperity never more than looked at me through the window. What
then? I could keep body and soul together. Ill-luck is too mean a
spirit for Death to patronize. Many a time has the great Angel turned
his back disdainfully on the other’s spiteful hints. He will not claim
me, I believe, until he sees him asleep, or tired of persecuting me.
“One day I was travelling on your underground railway. I had for
companion in my compartment a single individual. He jumped out at
the Blackfriars station, leaving a handbag on the seat. At the
moment the train moved off I noticed this, seized it, and leaned with
it out of the window, with a purpose to shout to its owner. I saw him
in the distance, hurriedly returning. The train gathered speed; I saw
he could never reach me in time, and I flung the bag upon the
platform. Instantly I perceived him leap, and jerk his arm across his
eyes; and on the same moment a terrible explosion occurred.
“Stunned, but unhurt, I had fallen back, when, in a flash, the full
horror of my situation burst upon me. It was the time of the dynamite
scares, and—ah, mon Dieu, mam’selle! your quick wit has already
perceived my misfortune.
“The train had stopped; the place was full of smoke; the hubbub of
a great tumult sounded in my ears. The owner of the infernal
machine was certainly destroyed in his own trap; I, at the same time,
had as certainly thrown the bag. No evidence to exonerate me was
now possible. Without an instant’s consideration, I opened the door
upon the line, slipped out, closed it, and raced for my life through the
smoke to the next station. I was successful in gaining its platform
without exciting observation. News of the catastrophe had already
been passed on, so that I was able, mingling with a frenzied crowd,
to make my way to the streets. But panic was in my feet, and all
reason had fled from my brain. I felt only that to remain in London
would be to find myself, sooner or later, the most execrated of
human monstrosities, on the scaffold. There and then I effaced
myself for the second time, hurried to the docks, and procured a post
as steward on an out-going steamer. I have never been in England
since. I now give monsieur the explanation he once asked for,
secure in the thought that, as ill-luck has at last conceded to me the
ministrations of this dear angel of a mademoiselle, his persecution
must be nearing its end before the approach of the only foe he
dreads. I leave it to monsieur, if he likes, to vindicate my name.”