Current:

Leader (1850-1860), 24th January 1852, Edition Country of 2, Page 19, Jan. 34, 1852.] M%t %t&ltt t* 87

Page 19
Page 19
19 of 24

On this page

  • Text (3)
  • Transcript

    • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

      Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

      We Hoped That The Questions Of " Animali...

      emotional-sp iritual-cdnditions wMelrgiTerfco-ArHts sanctity and charm . " Oh , " says W . M . ( 6 ) , " you might upon the same principle invite the poet to recite his amours to your family circle . " No ; he might read to us the poem ? ot his amours , < but not relate the prose details . You "do not see any difference ? " We may , perhaps * succeed in proving that there is one , and an important one . By sublimating prose reality into poetry , he removes it from that region where our thoughts would

      naturally wander into tracks by common consent enclosed ; he aims at exciting the purest emotions , and to effect this he removes the subject f rom ' the contact with vulgar realities—he isolates the emotion , so to speak ^ -and attunes your mind by various artifices of beauty , music , metaphor , and remoteness of scenery and language . Take an illustration from Tragedy . It is evident that you could not , without agony , w it ness o r h ear nar r ate d a real tragedy , yet you witness with pleasure a tragedy performed . What < is the difference ? The difference between Art and Reality . Thus it is that modest women read without a blush—or

      without even the thought of blushing , till some modest man tells them they ought to blush—poems , the prose translation of which no one would thinkof lay ing before them ; and whoever does not understand the reason of this difference may pride himself upon being supremely ignorant of Art— ^

      Jan. 34, 1852.] M%T %T&Ltt T* 87

      Jan . 34 , 1852 . ] M % t % t & ltt t * 87

      Stephen's Philosophy Of History. Lecture...

      STEPHEN'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY . Lectures on the History of France . By the Bight Honourable i . Sir James Stephen , K . C . B . 2 vols . X > ongman and Co . Wahave delayed our notice of these volumes so long , that other critics have now informed the public of their general nature , and relieved us from that duty . We purpose , therefore , on the present occasion , to ixamine certain opinions thrown out in the course of these lectures , and , instead of reviewing the book , to review Sir James Stephen ' s theory of History , particularly in reference to Auguste Comte . " There is a special Providence in the fall of a

      sparrow . " It may be so ; but we contend that such a mode of interpreting history is not simply unphilosophical , it is derogatory to the dignity of Providence . We contend that the notion of Providence interfering in the natural issue of human affairs is a theological notion , which , though it still lingers , must finally follow the old notion of interference in the processes of Nature . It was once thought that every tempest was the wrath of a deity . It was thought that an eclipse boded some such darkening wrath of a divine power , even long after men had ceased to regard the tempest as

      anything more than a natural phenomenon . In the camp of Agamomnon an epidemic breaks out . The men die by scores . The terrified army at once atttributes it to the clanging of the silver bow of the wrathful Apollo , who thus avenges the insult to his priest . What is to be done ? Modern Science , with a Sanitary Commission at hand , would have a ready answer ; ancient theology sees only one resource—expiatory peace-offerings to the irritated god ! You smile at this theology

      of an unenlightened pagan : it is absurd , is it not ? Yet having smiled , look at home , and see whether theology be not everywhere the same in spirit ! In spite of modern science , and our scorn of the Greeks , did we not find learned and able men attr ibuting the cholera to God's anger at having endowed the Colleges of Maynooth—and at the wrath of . the Deity because the current coin of the realm wanted certain respectful letters ? So perilous a thing is scorn I

      Hist ory speaks , with unequivocal distinctness , this sentence : As the theological notions of Providential interference in natural processes have passed away , and only now remain among vulgar errors , & o gradually passes away the notion of lro vidential interference in the development of human History . If no sparrow falls without a special Providence , every one xan draw this conelusion , viz * , that the Providence which is

      omnipresent cannot be cited for special occasions : providence must then bear the burden of all that is bad , weak , villainous , and foolish , in human ailairs—a conclusion repugnant to every understanding . If , relinquishing the notion of omnipresent interference , we thr ow ourselves upon the p ff ™* events of history /* in which the " finger of "ocl is said to be visible , what are we doing but imitating our forefathers , who , when they ceased to

      -con 8 ider-the-storm-a 8—more-than-a-natural-phenomenon , still considered the comet and eclipse as divine portents ? The miracle of Healing Ms disappeared from our Liturgy since the beginning of the last century / but it was formerly an important part of the . service' ; and why is it rejected now ? Because men have learned somewhat more of the conditions of organic beings , and dare not attempt to delude themselves with such miracles ; nor dare they put up prayers for rain , let the farmer be never so anxious !

      The conviction forced upon men ' s minds by the spread of scientific views is , that special interferences of Providence are not in harmony with the noblest conception of Religion or of Science . It is Auguste Comte ' s great merit to ^ have systematized the scientific ideas of our age , and to have extended them beyond the old domain of science into that of morals , politics , and history . Inasmuch as our social phenomena , h owev e r com plex , are

      produced by natural causes—inasmuch as they themselves are subject to laws no less ri gorous than the laws of the material world—a science is possible ; but before a positive science can be established , all theological and metaphysical conceptions must be rooted out of it . " The Hand of God in History , " therefore , becomes a conception as inadmissible as that of the- Portents of Eclipses —• the Divine Wrath of Pestilences . *

      It is against the scientific theory of History that Sir James Stephen raises his voice . We have an unfeigned respect for Sir James . His learning , hi s acumen , his imag ina t i o n , his style , his deep religious fervour , and admirable candour , make

      him an adversary of whom we must always speak with esteem . But—and he will perhaps consider it a compliment—he has not a scientific intellect . T he b i as , no less than the temperament , of his mind is theological . His writings afford abundant proof ; if they did not , this passage would suffice : — " First , then , _ one is constrained to marvel at the zeal which celebrates the discovery of that system in such lavish terms of applause . Instead of being inclosed within the royal domain of science for the use and glory of a little knot of philosophers , might it not as well have been left , where assuredly it was

      found , in the open fields of speculation , for the behoof of all who have right of common there ? There were brave men before Agamemnon ; and a countless host of ' thinkers' about history were making use of the 1 concrete deductive method' before the appearance of M . Comte to inculcate , or of Mr . Mill to explain , the practice of it . We have not far to look for examples . Open any speculative treatise on government , from the days of Aristotle to those of Montesquieu , and you will find innumerable instances of that modest wisdom which advises the adaptation of the measures of the lawgiver to the general tendencies of

      human motives , and which suggests a careful inquiry into the actual coincidence of the theory and the result . Take down anyone at hazard of the ponderous volumes of our statutes at large , and you will find our English legislators declaring it expedient to frame one enactment after another , by each of which they at least designed to introduce such innovations as , according to the supposed tendencies of men ' s nature , would , as they believed , produce beneficial effects on the social state of the people of England . Nay , in many of those statutes , our Parliament ( speaking prose without being aware of it ) made the the law and

      operation of -new temporary experimental , that , before they advanced further , they might see how far there was any real ' consilience ' between their expectation and the event . It is one thing to interpret , another to invent . He who first interpreted the law according to which arches sustain a vast superincumbent weight , did good service ; but he was not the inventor of the arch . That praise belonged to the stonemason . M . Comtemay be the first didactic writer about the * positive ; ' but it was among the most established of all intellectual crafts long before he arose to take his seat on the dialectic throne . "

      This argument is very like the one employed by his friend Macaulay on a similar occasion—the question of Bacon ' s method . We cannot pause to refute it . We are content tto leave it with those who think that Bacon ' s method was really of no importance . 1 S 4 r James , in his remarks on Comte , Mill , and Grote , has one really strong position , and we display it . He , is a theologian and , an orthodox Christian . Ho reposes on his creed . Instead of referring all social phenomena to social laws , he refers " the great number and more important ot these phenomena , not to the action of outward circumstances , but to the antagonistic influences ot those two internal principles to which theology gives the names of Natural Corruption and of Divine Grace . " Ho complains , and justly , that inasmuch as Christianity claims to answer

      -many- ^ of—the—^ most-intricate—inquiriesr-it—should not be passed over in silence by the Sociologists . They should say at once that they do not believe in Christianity . Sir James is right . They should say so . If he had read Comte , he would know that nothing can be more' emphatic than his denial of Christianity ; but Mill and Grote keep timid silence : more ' h e p ity!—it being the duty , we believe , of all eminent men to refuse to sanction with the weight of their authority ( as by silence they do in some sense sanction it ) a creed which they believe to be erroneous . Sir James has this elevated passage , which we commend to the attention of all , especially the bigoted opponents of free thought : —

      ' " I anticipate the answer . No man is really free amongst us to avow his disbelief of the religion of his age and country ; nay , hardly of any one of the commonly received articles of it . With whatever seriousness , decorum , and integrity of purpose , such an avowal may be made , he who makes it must sustain the full force of all those penalties , civil and social , which more or less attend upon all dissent , or supposed dissent , from the recognized standard of orthodoxy . I acknowledge and lament that this is so . I think that they who inflict such penalties are entitled to no praise and to no gratitnde . They give to disbelief a motive and an apology for a dishonest self-concealment . They give to the believing a painful

      mistrust that there may possibly be existing , and yet concealed , some potent reasons , which , if men could speak their minds with real impunity , would be alleged against their own most cherished convictions . No infidel ever did , or can do , so much prejudice to our faith as has been done by those zealous adherents- of it "who labour so strenuously , and ^ so often with such unfortunate success , to terrify all objectors into . silence * The early Christians were but too successful in destroying all the writings of the eariy infidels . Yet , for the confirmation of our faith in the present age , a complete copy of Celsus would be of far more value than -the whole of the volumes

      of Origen . " As a fitting companion to this passage we quote another , wherein Sir James prefaces his dissent from the school of Comte—a lesson to flippant critics playing with great names : — " Now , although the superciliousness of men of genius may occasionally expose them to some dislike , they are always safe from retaliation . No man unarmed with the triple brass of ignorance , of presumption , and of self-conceit , would suppose himself entitled to speak , or to think , lightly of a science invented by M . Comte , expounded by Mr . Mill , and adopted and illustrated by Mr . Grote . It is with profound respect for those great names , and with a corresponding anxiety for my own credit in dissenting from them , that I request your attention to the motives which have forbidden me to enlist under their

      banners . ' The strong position occupied by Sir James S tep hen is the Bible . If you believe in the Bible , you cannot avoid the belief of particular interferences of Providence to bring about certain results . If you do not believe in the Bible , you should say so . We wish the ground could always be thus narrowed , and the Bible be fairly fronted by sciencethe victor to be crowned with something pleasanter than thorns 1 Meanwhile the world must struggle

      on through incessant compromises , vanishing superstitions , s t ead y advance of scientific conceptions replacing those superstitions , and endless heartburnings on all sides . This , however , we will say —• and our testimony can hardly be suspected as partial— that in the coming conflicts of opinion a few such elevated , generous minds as Sir James Stephen —candid to opponents , while stedfast in hia own views —will do more than anything else to allay the heat of passionate antagonism , and clear the arena for more equal combat .

      Whateley On The English Language. A Sele...

      WHATELEY ON THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE . A Selection of English Synonyms . The Second Edition , Rovisod and Enlarged . J . VV . Parker . This revised edition of Archbishop Whateley ' a admirable little work on English Synonyms enables us to repair an oversight , and to introduce it to our readers . All who appreciate the delicate delight of preserving pur language from the incessant temptations of careless colloquialism and from the impetuous onslaughts of vulgar ity and ignorance , will be thankful to the author ot this volume for the care and discrimination he has bestowed on the

      nice distinctions of meaning lying in synonyms . The importance of preserving accuracy in lan g uage is only understood by those whose psychological studies have made them acquainted with the part played by language as itself an instrument of thought : and by those whose studies have lain

  • Citation
    • Leader (1850-1860), Jan. 24, 1852, page 19, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_24011852/page/19/