« הקודםהמשך »
teriori, “the argument from facta,” and bas suggested a question respecting the absence of great men in our day which he has not satisfactorily answered. His first apologetiral remark on their absence is not very apposite, for we are not inquiring into the relative proportion between the great men of ancient and inodern times, but into the tendency of a certain age. Our friend's second remark, that we are not in a position to appreciate the qualities of our great men, we must to a certain extent dispute. Men of ordinary mould may sometimes possess abilities for which they never reorive credit, but this can scarcely be the case with a greut man. His light cannot be hidden, for
"Like a summer's sun, should a great man's life
In its dawn all promise be;
To fruitage all humanity;
In glory tranquilly." If, however, through any adverse circumstances, the worth of somo great men may not be recognized during their lives, the very absence of it will cause it to be appreciated immediately after their death, and concerning them the once ungrateful multitude will be ready to exclaim,
“Great men bare heen among us: hands that perned
And tongues that attered wisdom, better none!" Many illustrations of this post mortem fame might be cited, but we forbear. In offering still another apology for the mediocrity of the age, our friend suggests that allowance must be made for the difference in the average stundard of intellectual development. Of course it must; and seeing that greatness is a relative term, in proportion 88 society is elevated by general intellectual culture, so will it become unfavourable to the development of great mon.
Let not the views which we hold on this question exert any depressing or repressing intlucnce upon the young and ardent; for though greatness may be difficult for any to attain, usefulness is possible to all. The age in which we live has its disadvantages, but it has many advantages over all preceding ages fur those who seek not to dazzle the world, but to bi'nefit their fellow.mon. In all the walks of social life, never was real virtue more desiderated, and true worth more highly prized. The brilliant but unprincipled aspirant may command admiration for a time; but the steady and the earnest worker, though “in the roll of common men," will surely, if slowly, secure appreciation and gain growing esteem. Still, "ihe race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong;" and while
“ The ostentations rirtues, which still press
To the fond votaries of fame unknown,
X. NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-III. It is a matter of great surprise to us that any one can be found for one moment to entertain the affirmative of this question; it appeared to us that the question was sure to be a perfectly one-sided, unanimous argument; we can only see, in an age of general intellectual culture, as a proximate result, great men as the rule, and little men as the exception to that rule. But wonders will never cease; and as we have passed that time in this world's history when the “wonders of the world” were limited to the number seven, we presume we must_not wonder overmuch at the appearance of “Touchstone" and R. S. in the arena of debate. We promise them a courteous reception, for it shall be respectful, and it shall be curt, for few words are necessary to utterly dissipate the vagaries and verbosity with which they have attempted to darken knowledge. We might even appeal to Touchstone” himself, as a tangible argument in disproof of his position in this dobate. Is he not an offspring of that mightiest of human geniuses, the man of all time -" the sweet Swan of Avon ” — immortal “Will Shakspere” hiinself? And is not “ Touchstone" even now a denizen in mortal flesh—" thing of substance, not of shadow"? Touching his parentage, he is a great man; and could we even now, O reader, lift the veil with which he has enshrouded himself, and exhibit to your admiring gaze “Touchstone" in propria persona, you would undoubtedly, with us, pronounce him a great man--yea, a great man in this 80 pre-eminently an age of general intellectual culture. Do not think we are assuming to be witty or sarcastic ; we are serious-never more so. We feel assured the British Controversialists would, one and all, maintain that " Toucbstone” is one of the great men of the nineteenth century, if he was only revealed to them. Behold, then, our first argument in the negative.
But we will look at the question per se, An age of general intellectual culture unfavourable to the development of great men ! Let us see. Much light darkens the landscape; beautiful music benumbs the sense of hearing; delicious perfumes vitiate the powers of the olfactory nerves, and pleasant, strengthening food corrupts the taste, and destroys the powers of the body! Well, it may be that we have lived in dreamland all the days of our mortal life, and are only just now beginning to learn trom Touchstone" and Co. the sad reality of life that the glorious orb of day dispels no midnight gloom; that the rays of truth, shining into the dark soul of igaorance, produce no enlarging, ennobling, revivifying influences ! It may be so; but hitherto we have douoted it, and feel inclined to fall asleep, that we may once again revisit our loved droamland, where cause and effect are inseparably united.
Friend " Touchstone,” will you visit with us this loved dreamland of ours? It is marked by a strange peculiarity,--a desire to reduce all things to the line and to the rule, to measure everything possible by those awkward things, facts and figures. This is the way we measure by figures :- if one hundred men of general intellectual culture produce five great men, one thousand intellectually culti. vated men will produce fifty great men, or more, because the spirit of emulation and rivalry will be intensified as the number of cultivated men is increased, then, if millions are added to the factors at one end of this scale of figures, in like proportion must they be added to the other, cæteris paribus. . Such is the language employed in dreamland. What think you of it, О reader P is it reasonable or not ?
Then we judge of facts after the same fashion. In olden time, “Solomon, the wise man,” and Homer, the bard, delivered their oracles to the wondering multitude of the illiterate; in later times, Dante, Shakspere, Milton, Bacon, and Locke filled the souls of men with their wisdom; but they were the giants of their day, each in his respective sphere, — their intellect was subordinate to the physical, the high and noble subject to the base and degrading: but a change having passed over the spirit of the dream, we live in an age of general intellectual culture ; here we find the landmarks of history laden with the choicest names ;-in art, a Turner, Millais, Bonheur ; in poetry, Talfourd, Knowles, Tennyson; in literature, Scott, Dickens, Thackeray ; in science, Stephenson, Locke, Brunel ; in philosophy, Whewell, Hamilton, and a "Touchstone." Time suffices not to tell the myriad of great men who adorn the nineteenth century, so pre-eminently the age of general intellectual culture, and fully show its power to favour the development of great men. Still
, again, we return to the contest. In an age of imperfect intellectual culture, so few minds attain to mediocrity, that mediocrity becomes apparent greatness, and any overstepping of these narrow limits make the great man of that little day ; but with the general intellectual culture of the nineteenth century, the great men among the past mediocrities become dwarfs in eomparison with the mediocrities of the present; how then can we say that general culture is unfavourable to greatness of intellect? Is it not true that the higher the general standard of excellence is raised, the greater the difficulty to overstep that standard? Hence what in the past ages of comparative ignorance and darkness qualified the exceptional possessor of intellectual culture to become a bright star in that meridian, when compared with a condition of general intellectual culture, becomes mere puerility and childishness. It is true Solomon, Homer, Newton, Milton, and Shakspere are great mon for all time and for all conditions of intellectual culture, but these are so extraordinary in their greatness, that a millennium is necessary for the production of each one. The earth has attained its sixth millenary period nearly, and the coming man to mark the
epoch is not yet designated by the far-reeing eyes of the most
In dark agts the bright stars of intelleet mere beacon-fires,
IS THE CHARACTER OF IGNATIUS LOYOLA WORTHY OF ADMIRATION AND RESPECT!
AFFIRMATIVE REPLY. In furnishing a reply to the various articles which have appeared on this subject, our task is neither difficult por tedious; and we feel our position, in asserting that the character of Loyola is entitled to admiration and respect, to be, as far as our opponents are concerned, perfectly secure. It is to be observed, in the first place, that the negative articles on this subject have been very negative in reality. They have totally fuiled, in our opinion, in portraying the character and actions of Ignatius Loyola. A biographical sketch has, it is true. been furnished of Loyola's life up to a certain period; but it abruptly breaks off at the most important point of his extraordinary career, and gives us no clue to the motives by which he was actuated in the desiguing and prosecuting of his great enterprise. Jesuitism is made the prominent feature in the controversy, and thenceforward the mastermind planning and moving ibe whole is lost sight of or forgotten.
This negative property of the articles by M. H. and S. S. seems to be the consequence of a mistake in supposing that it is the principles of Jesuitism, and vot the character of its founder, tbat is a he subject for discussion ; and that, because Jesuitism is a bad thing now, Loyola could not, iherefore, be entitled to admiration and respect simply because he happened to originate it! As well say that ibe invenior of firearms and swords as a means of defenco is not entitled to any praise, simply because they have been used for
purposes of assassination, and a live-preserver has, in the hands of the garotter, become a life-lestroyer.
M. H., in fact, by adopting as his motto the words of Rankeviz., " That Loyola was a fanatic, a Papist, and a Jesuit.”--furnishes the key to the whole of his article, and also that of 8. S. Ho plainly concludes that, because of this fact, Loyola could not be a man worthy the admiration and respect of any. In the first place, we very much disputa whether the climax of Ranke is incontrovertible, as M. H. says it is. That Loyola was a fanatic we dedy, and have, in our opening paper, given reasons for this opinion; that because he happened to be a Papist and a Jesuit, therefore we are to condemn him as unworthy of admiration and respect, seems, to say the least, a very illogical conclusion, and from such, to adopt the language of N. E. ** may the shades of honesty and free discussion deliver us.” He was a J-suit, it is true ; but it must also be borne in mind that he was the first Jesuit; and to condemn him, because we condemn the Jesuit of the nineteenth century, is certainly unfair. When Jesuitism fell, it was chiefly through its own acts that it did so.
Another very illogical line of argument may be traced in both the papers we have noticed; it is that of the argumentum ad hominem., Three persons are brought prominently forward as great anthorities, as the anthorities required to decide the controversy -- viz., Ranke, Macaulay, and Mr. Neil. These have written of Loy. la. Their opinion is adverse to him; therefore he is not entitled to admiration and respect. Now, with all due deference to these gentlemen, and fully admitting in the main the weight and truth of their remarks, we still assert that they do not make so much against Loyola as our opponents would have us believe. All these genilemen, be it remem. bered, were writing rather of Jesuitism, iis rise and progress, than they were of Loyola as Loyola separate-as far as it is possible to separate bim-from the society of which he was the founder. But it is time that we noticed the negative articles more in detail, and ascertain what effect they are likely to have upon our position. To criticize them much will, für the reason above mentioned, almost lead us into a criticism of Ranke and Macaulay, so m'ich do they rely for support on these great and potent names. Now, though this is what we by no means intended, yet will we not shrink from the task, but plainly and fearlessly give our opinion of the extracts taken from the writings of these great men, and determine, as far as we are able, their influence on the subject at issue.
. The first point demanding our attention is the contrast of Luther and Loyola. A contrast striking enough, we admit, in the localities, and in the results which each produced; but yet hardly fair ax a test to obtain the real character of either min. The statement of Ranke, quoted by M. H. may be thus condensed:-Luther and Loyola were each, about the same time, pluog-d into great mental distress, arising from a similar cause. Each extriated himself, but in a very dissimilar manger. Luther studied the Bible, arrived at the doctrine of atonement and justification by faith, a'd founded Protestantism.. We admire and respect him. Loyole did not do this, but read the lives of saints, and became the founder of Jesuitism. The conclu