« הקודםהמשך »
strivings noted at the head of this article would have commended themselves to that notable man as a model biography; and indeed we think the life of Archbishop Whately may be regarded as practically unwritten. The single qualification of fitness is wanting alike in each of the writers who have essayed this great task. The biographer of Whately ought to be acquainted with the scholastic life of the universities; learned in the state of the teaching of logic in the schools of the times; fully conversant with the antecedents of the Tractarian movement, its procedure, and its results ; capable of estimating the consequences of the Reform Bill in the three kingdoms; especially endowed with a knowledge of Irish ecclesiastical history and the position of parties, political and religious, in that land of civic difficulties and sectarian incompatibilities ; able to take into consideration the education question and the social condition of Ireland, as well as the relations between the English Government and the Irish episcopal bench; and, above all, a thorough theological scholar, to whom the state of religious matters was an open and thoroughly traversed tract, as well as a man trained to the good usages of society among civic dignitaries and church potentates. Besides all these broad and general qualifications, many special requirements arise as necessary to the full elucidation of Whately's career. For instance, it is curious that so acute a mind as Whately's should constantly and ostentatiously be avowing incalculable obligations to Bishop Coplestone; and the relations between the ideas of Coplestone and the productions of Whately require elucidation. So, too, the connections between Newman and Whately have been singularly noteworthy, and seem to be capable of having some further light shed on them than has yet been. German neology and rationalism in Oxford, as well as the patristic influences of Dr. Pusey, must have had some influence on Whately, but this point has been left unexplained. Whately and Arnold interchanged many confidences and much thought, but the Arnold-Whately concursus bas never been brought into due prominence. Whately's connection as an Edinburgh Reviewer under Jeffrey, the contemner of Oxford, and co-worker in the pages of a serial in which he had been most damagingly assailed by Sir William Hamilton, is another strange episode in an extraordinary life. Whately's support of Peel and the Emancipation Act was, in the state of Oxford then, almost as remarkable an event as his occupation of the chair of political economy; and we have scarcely yet got into the secret of Whately's preferment to Dublin being regarded as more politic than the advancement thereto of Lord Augustus FitzClarence, son of Mrs. Jordan and William IV. Then what of Bishop Philpotts and his attack on the new Bishop of Dublin P and, still more, what of the relations between the late respected Roman Catholic Archbishop Murray, and his stateendowed Protestant episcopal brother? Whately's views on the Sabbath question and on the Evangelical Alliance, are not in either of these books brought out in a reasoned or a reasonable form.
with the press.
No adequate account is furnished in either of these books of the national education system of Ireland, and of the whole course of colleagueship, collusion, collision, and intrigue in which the Commission on that subject engaged. The "Hampden controversy" was one of great moment, and one in which the Archbishop of Dublin took special interest, but it is not recorded in any comprehensible way, although referred to in several places. It is almost equally difficult to extract from these volumes any definite knowledge of the relations of the Rev. Blanco White and his archiepiscopalian patron. The reticency shown by Miss Whately is all the more singular because what she does give of letters and replies really requires a distinctly narrative interpretation to give them interest and make them understood. Archbishop Cullen is not named in Miss Whately's work, and yet it is pretty well known that he contributed not a little to the chagrin with which Whately saw his life-labours on common-school education thrown away. There is, too, in Miss Whately’s notices of his works a strange suggestive tone, as if Dr. Whately had been a life-long intriguer
We do not object to Fitzpatrick's Memoirs that they are unauthorized and composed by an adherent of the creed to which Whately's public life was opposed, but we condemn the work as a hasty bundle of anecdotes gathered together and thrust prematurely upon public notice, in such a way as in some measure to frustrate the interest of a sanctioned work, and in a greater degree still as calculated to make the production of a faithful biography free from the animus of controversy very difficult. That Miss Whately bas treated his Memoirs with the contempt of leaving them unnoticed is perhaps wise ; but there are so many topics on which he has given his opinions, or contributed his anecdotal stores, which she has left unmentioned, that not only a sense of incompleteness is given to her “Life," but sometimes a sense of suppression creeps into the mind. It would have been more prudent, we think, to have given distinct statements and explicit explanations of all such matters as he had touched on, than to have left readers to suppose that he had supplied veritable details, or that his statements or views were sufficiently correct as to be accepted by after historians.
Of Miss Whately’s “Life” we have not so much to complain of the disadvantages arising from her near relationship as of the de. ficiency of collateral explanatory matter, and of the over-ladening of the narrative portion with long extracts from commonplace books, letters, &c., without due subordination to the substance of the narrative. On the whole-it is a pity to think so, but it so strikes us -between these two Memoirs there has been produced a biography such as is scarcely more unsatisfactory than the life of Wordsworth, the memoirs of I'homas Moore, or the biography of James Montgomery,—the three most inchoate books of biography produced during the last half-century. This we say regretfully, because we think that no man of the half-century had so good a right to have
had a lucid, straightforward, plain-spoken, well-arranged biography as Archbishop Whately; and few lives surely could have been made 80 productive of high teaching in honour, consistency, perseverance, and faith as a private character, and in public life as a pattern of resolute dutifulness, self-devotion, and spirituality, combined with practicality:
The model biography which ought to have been followed in regard to Whately is John Forster's "Goldsmith,” or Lewes' " Life of Goethe." We do not see why the life of the Archbishop of Dublin should be inferior in interest to that of Dr. Thomas Chal. mers-lumbering and heavy as it is; Dr. Thomas Arnold, though it is somewhat restrained on some points of interest; or Rogers' life of John Howe. We do not ask that we should have Whately Boswellized; that his story should possess the weird fascination Carlyle has given to his brief "Sketch of John Sterling;" that in fulness of detail and multifariousness of matter it should rival Lock bart's “Scott;" that in marvellous audacity of carelessness it should equal Moore's “ Byron;" that in elucidative minuteness it should contest the palm with Chambers' “ Burns ;” that in overflowing historicality it should err as much as David Masson's “Life of Milton;" that in flow and sequence it should excel Smiles' "George Stephenson;" or that in taste and selectness it should outmaster Sterling's Charles V.;”—but we have surely a right to expect that it shall not be as maundering as the “Life and Correspondence of Southey;" as prosy as Muirhead's “ Watt;" as colourless as Henry's “ Dalton; as over-heaped with crudities and inedited matter as Napier's “Montrose;" and as dateless in many instances, or as gossipily anecdotical as Campbell's " Lives of the Chancellors."
Fitzpatrick's Memoirs are the notes of an outsider, the clippings and collections of a clever man thrown hastily together, apparently, without any direct or personal knowledge of the Archbishop:--of an outsider too of different opinions on religious and political affairs, --and one who does not profess to have any settled views upon the questions incidentally rising up as matters for discussion or com. ment. Miss Whately's book is too evidently got up under the home-influence, and devotes more of its space to the man and his friendliness than even to the thinker, the author, the politician, and the Episcopal tenant of a St. Stephen's Green Mansion. The portrait presented is rather that of the man as the authoress would like bim to be thought of than of the man as he was. We miss in it much of the intellectuality and the whole of the individuality of the Bishop. We sincerely regret that either of the books were published the first because it is distinctly unappreciative, and a mere stop-gap, if not a catchpenny, huge pamphlet, in the disguise of a substantive book; the second as partaking a great deal too much of mere pamphleteering, but chiefly as occupying the market so as to make it seem almost indecorous to make a new venture. Perhaps a quarter of a century may elapse before the biography of Whately can now be fittingly written.
We know that Miss Whately intends to produce a story of her father's life, a condensed narrative of his doings and works; but we do not think she is so able to tell it with fulness, independency, and freedom as some man who has had to do with the state policy and church finesse in which Ireland abounds ; nor with the breadth of spirit which the biography demands. The example of the Archbishop himself in his “Memoirs of Coplestone would perhaps be the best model she could adopt; but certainly the interest-dissipating style of the present memoir is of all things to be avoided if she desires to compose a popular biography. We know of no man's biography wbich it would be more difficult to write properly than Archbishop Whately’s, except that of his great rival, Sir William Hamilton-and our estimate of the difficulty of the latter undertaking is corroborated by the fact that a dozen years have nearly elapsed since the great logician's death, and that an official biography, announced as forthcoming shortly after his demise, is not yet out; while the third biography of Whately is represented to be in the press.
Had Dickinson or Senior lived to provide the presentment of the Archbishop as he lived we might have got a satisfactory result. Was not the Rev. Dr. Wm. Fitzgerald, Bishop of Killaloe, the man from whose pen the national biography of Whately should have proceeded ? The Battle of the two Philosophies. By AN INQUIRER. London:
Longmans, Green and Co. This book took its rise from the publication in 1865 of John Stuart Mill's " Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy and of the principal philosophical questions discussed in his writ. ings"-of which notice was taken in October of that year in a leading paper, and to which attention was again given in January, 1866, in a notice of (now Dr.] James Hutchison Stirling's “Sir Wm. Hamilton : being the Philosophy of Perception.". Unfor. tunately this book did not come under our critical eye then, and indeed only recently came into our hands through the kindness of a philosophical friend. Had it done so our review would have been somewhat more in season than it can now be. We are of opinion, however, that it is of sufficient importance as a contribu. tion to philosophy to merit even now an outline of its matter, and an indication of its worth.
In his introduction the author compares the two combatants, and remarks that it is impossible to allow the same man to be at once the accuser, the judge and the jury, in a cause which he has so energetically made his own," as Mr. Miil has done. The two questions which he considers as raised by Mr. Mill's polemic are-(1) What is the real worth of Sir W. Hamilton as a thinker and edu. cator of thought ? (2) What is the truth of the transcendental system of philosophy. He points out that Mr. Mill seems to argue that to refute Sir W. Hamilton's philosophy is to refute the à priori school in its most complete form, and he maintains that his
overthrow would not be the overthrow of transcendental philosophy, and he complains bitterly of the apparently personal rancour which the younger thinker exhibits towards the elder. The three main questions of transcendental philosophy—“the turning points of the battle"--are (1) the philosophy of the conditioned ; (2) the doctrine of Free Will; and (3) the doctrine that mind and matter, an ego and a non-ego, are orginal data of consciousness; and he proceeds to examine the respective methods of Mill and Hamilton in dealing with the chief points involved in them. In this he seems, in regard to the first, to accuse Mr. Mill of employing the Indefinite attached to the word Infinite, and in regard to the second as making conceivability equivalent to believability, while “consciousness in its last analysis, in other words, our primary experience, is a Faith" lying at the base of all conceptiveness. The author's concise definition of the three possible theories of will, as the motive power, the efficient cause of men's actions, is deserving of quotation:
“There are three hypotheses to be considered; for, either man originates, or causes his own actions, which is the first hypothesis ; or those whose actions follow certain moral antecedents ; namely, desires, aversions, habits, and dispositions, combined with outward circumstances, with the same uniformity as physical effects follow physical causes ; and all these again are effects of other moral causes, as education, or other moral and physical influences. The second hypothesis traces all these causes through a longer or shorter chain, back to the universal or first cause, the creative cause of man and all his circumstances. The third, denying any first cause, carries back the whole series into the unknowable, and finally into infinite noncommencement."
The criticism of Mr. Mill's views in regard to these theories is in the earlier part acute and in the latter part peculiarly smart, and a clever argumentum ad hominem in reference to the “Essay on Liberty" seems to put the politician in opposition to the metaphysician. In discussing the question "Can we explain the facts of consciousness alone ?" and Mr. Mill's affirmatory, answer, the author charges the great logician with postulating the human mind, as “a permanent possibility of feeling;" a rapacity of expectation in it; à principle of association, and a memory :
“Together with the following à priori or unaccounted-for elements: 1, an ultimate belief that in the same circumstances I shall have the same sensations ; 2, another ultimate belief-to which we are impelled by the laws of our minds-in reality, or a substratum ; 3, the power of imagination ; 4, of generalisation ; 5, the notion of order and idea of causation; 6, of duration; 7, of existence; 8, of power ; 9, of conditions ; 10, of possibility. And then comes this very remarkable statement. We find that the modiGcations which are taking place—in our possibilities of sensation-are mostly quite independent of our presence or absence."
And he objects, that the mind "cannot bring about its own conception," "act before it exists and by its acting cause its own