« הקודםהמשך »
not less powerful influence of companions, intellectual energy is developed only in several determinate directions. Mind is moulded to some pre-existing, prescribed pattern. The man is turned, as it were, out of an intellectual lathe, beautifully symmetrical, no doubt, but slavishly like his neighbour, destitute of any originality or force of character. Accustomed to confine his wanderings to a region fenced in by precedent and authority, he shrinks from overleaping conventional bounds; and if somehow he does get out where no authority can help him, but where he must personally grapple with the great problems of the universe, his courage fails him, he shudders at his temerity, and hurries back to the company of his friends and advisers. In short, general intellectual culture militates against independent thinking, which is the root of all real greatness.
Now, we are by no means prepared to assert that this argument is utterly deroid of weight. On the contrary, we freely acknowledge that here, as in many other departments of the natural economy, the individual is to a certain extent sacrificed to the general good. The licence of savage independence or utter anarchy is, doubtless, more absolute than the freedom of citizens in a well. governed state. But is there not, in a state of society under law, a compensating advantage infinitely overweighing the limited sacrifice of natural rights which each citizen must make? Assuredly there is. He would be a very fool who should take so partial a view of this subject as to lament the existence of laws, courts, police, &c., branding them as restraints on his natural birthright of freedom, and sighing for
“The good old law, the simple plan,
And those should keep who can." So it is in the case under discussion. The beneficial tendencies of general intellectual culture far outnumber those which are prejudicial. Frequent intercourse with well-cultivated minds subserves higher ends than merely to rub off the corners of individual character till a regular symmetry is attained. “ As iron sharpeneth iron, so doth a man the countenance of his friend." It cannot be affirmed that an age of general intellectual culture does not possess, equally with any other period, great men in posse. Nay, further, we must take it for granted, that the proportion of potentially great men is the same in all ages. The present question, viewed in relation to this fact, is, whether an age of general intellectual culture is unfavourable to the development of this possible into actual greatness. Now, no law is more clearly ascertained than this, that the development of any power, physical or mental, is in proportion to the exercise to which it has been subjected. The more protracted and vigorous that exercise has been, the greater is the actual energy which the power is capable of exerting. Supposing that there have been many “mute, inglorious Miltons," their silence and obscurity must have resulted solely from a defective education, i.e., a neglect to draw out into energetic exercise the powers which were latent in them. Here, then, we reach the root of the matter, and the question virtually is, What state of society affords the best intellectual gymnasium? To this question there can be but one answer. An age when there is ready access to all the stores of learning, ancient and modern; when an inquiring spirit is actively working in all departments of knowledge; when mind does not stagnate under the dull, narcotic influence of an intellectual monopoly ; but when each man is striving, and at the same time co-operating, with his fellow-man in the pursuit of truth,-in such an age the ardent student has his energies stimulated by a healthy rivalry, his powers whetted, and his errors corrected, by daily contact with minds stored with erudition, and wrought to the highest polish by the unremitting study of a lifetime. Such an age is fitted to animate all to the highest degree of assiduity in their work of self-development; and that such a training will not seriously affect any really valuable idiosyncrasy is abundantly proved by the state of opinion among the thinkers of the present day. In no period of the world's history has manly independence of thought been more strikingly manifested. Authority cannot now command belief, but every thought, principle, and opinion must be brought to the bar of reason and experience, and confirmed or rejected by the decision of that tribunal. We do not here commit ourselves to an approval of the daring and rash speculation which is so prevalent, but we adduce the fact of its existence, as showing that the general culture of the age has not tended to destroy the independent thinking of individual, original minds.
But the phrase, “ general intellectual culture,” is susceptible of a double interpretation, and the question may, in consequence of this ambiguity, be discussed on different arguments. We have considered the term “general" as applicable to men, but we may, without violating any rule of grammatical construction, view it as applicable to the different mental faculties. In the former case the particulars which compose the general are individual minds ; in the latter they are the different faculties of a single mind. It is thought, however, that the affirmative advocates would have, according to this latter reading, no standing-ground; for their contention would virtually be a contention for a partial and onesided education. Under colour of such an ambiguous, well-sounding phrase as “the universal must be superficial,” they would seek to maintain that it was best to foster any special natural talent wbich the individual might possess, at the expense of all his other powers. They would introduce into the sphere of intellectual activity the principle of the division of labour, have each man to confine himself to that species of mental work alone for which nature appears to them or himself to have specially adapted him. But no one will say that he who runs round and round in such a contracted sphere as this is worthy the name of great. He who would be truly great must acquire a catholicity of development. The most effec. tive training for this is to investigate science, philosophy, politics, art, religion; to go out into the world, study society in its various classes, examine opinions and prejudices, and thus have the mind freed from narrowness, intolerance, and egotism, by the salutary influence of a liberal education.
II. Coming now to the argument à posteriori, the argument from facts, Where, it may be asked, are the great men of this your 80-called age of general intellectual culture : There is no lack of literati, doctors, professors, colleges, scientific societies, literary institutes, &c., but where are the great men? One here and there may, perhaps, possess a doubtful claim to greatness, but these are few, and their claims are very dubious. Pitt, Goethe, Humboldt, Davy, Brougham, Scott, Coleridge, Cousin, Hamilton, Macaulaythese, and such as these, perhaps, are stars of the first magnitude in your firmament; but how dim their radiance, how tiny their twinkle, alongside of the clear, full blaze of
"The great of old,
Our spirits from their urns"! Where is your Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Dante, Bacon, Shakspere, Milton? These do not dwindle in distance, and die out in the long procession of the ages, but shine as the stars for ever and ever. How comes it that in an age of general intellectual culture we can find none such as these ?
Now, there are several considerations which must be taken into account in estimating the force of this argument. In the first place, the contrast is unfair, inasmuch as the long era from the earliest dawn of history down through the Middle or Dark Ages, till a comparatively recent period, say 700 B.c. to 1760 A.D., is put against the limited time, some threescore years and ten, which can be called an age of general intellectual culture. In the second place, we are not in a position rightly to determine the relative merits of ancient and contemporary celebrities. The respect which real merit at all times commands is raised by antiquity into veneration, and the faults and shortcomings which qualify the esteem of contemporaries are suffered to sink into oblivion, and form no, or at least a very slightly esteemed, element in the judgment of posterity. No man is a hero to his valet. We, like the valet, know too much about our heroes. They frequently manifest to our eyes their mere humanity, the many frailties incident to it, and we judge of them accordingly. “A prophet bath no honour in his own country," nor, it may be added, in his own age. In the third place, allowance must be made for the difference in the average standard of intellectual development. Of two mountains equally raised above the level of the sea, that one will appear the higher which rises from the less elevated plain. Supposing the average intellectual develop. ment in the time of Queen Elizabeth to be = 10, that of the present age will not be overrated at 20; so that Bacon, in order to stand in the same relation of superiority to us as he did to bis contemporaries, would require to receive a development exactly double that which he actually attained. But, further, even although it should be made out that our age is utterly barren in the matter of individual greatness, this would not be of great advantage to the affirmative side; for to many nations the present is not an age of general intellectual culture; and whatever may be said about others, these certainly cannot show a plentiful crop of heroes.
On the whole, therefore, we submit, that neither from the nature of the thing, nor from experience, can it be shown that an age of general intellectual culture is unfavourable to the development of great men.
IS THE CHARACTER OF IGNATIUS LOYOLA WORTHY
OF ADMIRATION AND RESPECT?
AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLI.-1. ONE grand result of the advancement of civilization and learning is, that it has tended to remove the baneful bias of party-spirit, and restrained in some degree the damaging operation of the petty prejudices inherent in each particular sect; so that a man is not looked upon as a saint or a heretic according as he belongs to this or to that religious denomination. Would that this veil of party prejudice were entirely removed from us! There is now a disposition to judge the character of a man, not by the arbitrary standard of the present, but by the light of historic truth; duly allowing for the nature and influence of the times in which each lived, and the peculiarity of the circumstances by which each may have been surrounded. There is now, happily, a desire to render unto every man his due, and to judge righteous judgment. We are thus led to see that, among systems which we may believe to be false or superstitious, there may be, and there have been, men distinguished above all others for the purity of their motives, the simplicity of their lives, and the consistency and conscientiousness of their actions; men whom our prejudices or party feelings would induce us to despise as cunning, two-faced villains. The founders and upholders of a system of superstition, immorality, and abominable treachery, may be found, when their motives and real intentions have been submitted to a close scrutiny, to be entitled to the admiration and respect of posterity.
Such a one, we believe, was Ignatius Loyola. We do not follow the same form of worship with those who claim Loyola as their own; we shall therefore, we trust, be believed when we state that we are not influenced by any party bias : our prejudices would, if we allowed them, force us to quite an opposite conclusion; but an anxious desire for truth and justice has led us to diligent research and careful deliberation-bas led us, in short, to take our stand with those who contend that the character of Ignatius Loyola is worthy of admiration and respect. We adduce the following points in support of this statement.
1. The loftiness and goodness of the work in which he engaged.There is something which fascinates the mind, and insensibly wins our admiration, when we hear of one who merely makes an attempt at great and lofty deeds. We often award him his meed of praise, without waiting to consider whether his acts are in themselves or in their effects good or bad. When desire has become reality, and the object with which his attempt was made is in the main a good one, shall we refuse our tribute of admiration and respect to the master-mind who perseveringly pursued it and finally triumphed ? Assuredly not. It must be presumed that the portion of Loyola's life from which we are to judge his character dates from his conversion (A.D. 1521). When lying on a sick couch in the paternal castle at Ognez (Spain), he was, by a perusal of various religious works, which were read more of necessity than of inclination, led to a sense of the enormity of his past offences, of his own present unworthi. ness, coupled with a sincere desire and strong determination to undergo any penance, however severe-to make any pilgrimage, however toilsome and tedious—to do, in short, all that the mortal frame could undergo, in order to remove his guilt and to stand reconciled with an offended Deity. We must not blame him for thinking and acting thus. However futile such attempts may be to accomplish the end designed, he, in accordance with the principles of the religion in which he had been trained, was firmly persuaded of their efficacy, and determined to put them in force whenever opportunity offered. His repentance was, we believe, sincere, and his determination to amend his life fixed. His impressions of things eternal were just, and of the most reverential nature. His conscience had been aroused, and his moral nature underwent a complete revolution. The sense of his own shortcomings was keen and tormenting, his self-reproaches severe in the extreme; and it was as a trembling culprit, deserving nothing but condemnation, that he approached the footstool of offended justice.
But we have as yet said nothing of his purpose. This was, in short, to win souls; to be engaged in his Master's work; to acquire and retain a spiritual dominion over the world; to persuade all men to enter the communion of that church beyond whose pale, he firmly believed, they would be eternally lost. Surely this was a lofty purpose; and in the main it was a good one-to him, of course, it was a most holy one. Nor do we doubt that it was better for those who heard him, and were persuaded by him to enter the Catholic communion, that they did so, thereby renouncing a life of profligacy and sin, to be controlled by the principles of a religion, however laden with absurdity and superstition that religion might