Изображения страниц

ment” can count for much, while each separate man denies that he is his brother's keeper.

We are constantly lectured about the effect of strong drinks in stimulating the bad passions. But the question immediately arises, Why should there be any bad passions to stimulate ? A man who when quite sober never desires to strike another will not want, after a glass of wine too much, to murder his neighbour. Those who are driven to crime by drink have crime already in them. “ And so has everybody.Not so. Everybody has sin in him, but not crime. It is a fair question whether we may not be bound to keep temptation to drink out of the way of those whom it maddens, just as we keep razors from children; it is a fair question, but it is a very large one; and if we once entertain it, in full, where are we to stop ? In spite of exceptional instances - very rare indeed—which have, superficially, a doubtful look, it is certain that general culture lessens the tendency to the sort of crime which is usually associated with drink; those who, when quite untouched by alcohol, want to do no harm, continue harmless when under its influence; and, last not least, a few of our fellowcreatures are decidedly bettered by about as much alcoholic stimulation as suffices to drive others to crime, or the verge of crime. Lastly, in regarding the misery caused by drink, which usually comes before us in very tangible single cases, or in large vague figures, we must not forget the immense incalculable amount of pleasure which is every day caused by the reasonable use of stimulants. Learned pundits may say what they please on the platform and in articles written ad hoc. It will still remain true that the most careful experiments have failed to detect any continuous registrable effects upon the human organism from the moderate use of alcohol; and common sense will obstinately laugh at the idea of connecting crime and misery with a tumbler of Bass, or claret, any more than with a cup of tea or coffee. The simple, easy enjoyments of life are few. To the wearied and overworked—who are the majority—they are wofully few. To millions of these a glass of wine or beer is just the make-weight in the scale-a poor feather, but essential-le superflu si nécessaire. They will continue to ask, Why should we drink water any more than sleep on planks? And even if we ought to do it, where, in our great towns, is the drinkable water to come from? And common sense will support them in their reluctance to part with a very simple pleasure, a pleasure which every tribe of man under heaven has invented for its own use in its own way, and which, while it has led to crime in characters of unstable equilibrium (a few only, after all), has caused as many happy hours in a weary world as anything but “young love" itself. Those who calmly maintain that the man who drinks half-a-pint of hock a day is fearfully discounting his future life may be left to the quiet but effective ridicule of their less hyperbolical fellow-creatures.



HIS volume contains one essay, “A Psychological Parallel,” which is familiar


to the readers of this REVIEW, and which might really claim substantive

discussion. The paper upon “Bishop Butler and the Zeit-Geist” is cer. tainly not of the same rank. It does not exhibit any of the author's spontaneity,

* Last Essays on Church and Religion. By Matthew Arnold, formerly Professor of Poetry in the University of Oxford, and Fellow of Oriel College London : Smith, Elder, & Co.

[ocr errors]

such as that is, and “mannered” as it is; and probably Mr. Arnold himself would scarcely claim a high place for it.

The rest of the volume is occupied with questions relating to the Church of England, the Dissenters, and their relations to each other. Mr. Arnold's way of treating these topics is well known. The Church of England is an institution for the promotion of goodness. Christianity and the Bible are in possession, and are a real source of the kind of power such an institution requires. Let us turn out all the old dogmas, but keep the old phrases as symbols; accommodate as we can in regard to creeds and prayers and lessons, but keep the institution, and try to reconcile the Dissenters. To this old story Mr. Arnold has nothing to add in the paper in which he bids adieu to such topics-except as they may arise indirectly. The exception is a terrible one; for the Nonconformists have always felt, and most of them have been ready to say, that Mr. Arnold has never for one hour understood them, and has even left upon their minds the impression that he declines to take off his gloves to handle their “political" argument. There is a most unpleasant reserve in Mr. Arnold's manner. His courtesy in discussion is not of the right strain. It has too much of the hauteur of his “ Barbarians” and the semiindifferent superiority of the schoolmaster. His personalities, however infused with his peculiar cat-like playfulness, are, to our thinking, among the most offen. sive ever ventured upon in public discussion. This, for example, is the way in which he rallies Mr. R. W. Dale, of Birmingham :—“Mr. Dale is really a pugilist, a brilliant pugilist. He has his arena down at Birmingham, where he does his practice with Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Jesse Collings, and the rest of his band; and then from time to time he comes up to the metropolis, to London, and gives a public exhibition here of his skill. And a very powerful performance it often is. .

. . I have no fears concerning Mr. Dale's intellectual muscles; what I am a little uneasy about is his religious temper.” It is very kind of Mr. Arnold to be so anxious about Mr. Dale's “religious temper," and perhaps it would be rude to say anything about his own, but such sallies of superior saintliness are somewhat unusual, and one is “a little uneasy” to know whether there is any prospect that Mr. Arnold's spiritual and moral digressions are likely to find imitators. If they are, we tremble to think what controversy may come to when all the dilettanteearnest people take to chaffing each other about “ grace and peace.” Mr. John Morley is not let off without a squib to his skirts:-"Mr. Morley himself is a lover of culture, and of elevation, and of beauty, and of human dignity. Scio, rex Agrippa, quia credis. He is keeping company with his Festus Chamberlain, and his Drusilla Collings, and cannot openly avow the truth; but in his heart he consents to it." This is the most charming specimen of “mildness and sweet reasonableness” that we remember since the days of Arminius; and if it is Mr. Arnold's notion of “grace and peace,” we shall be curious to see him after his saintly studies" in der höchsten reinlichsten Zelle"-to which he seems about to retire. “As one grows older," says Mr. Arnold, “one feels that it is not one's business to go on for ever expostulating with other people upon their waste of life, but to make progress in grace and peace oneself.” Sir Lancelot groaned by the water-side in remorseful pain, not knowing he should die a holy man. Certainly one never expected the creator of Arminius to retire in that capacity from these conflicts.

Mr. Matthew Arnold, late Professor of Poetry at the University of Oxford, objects to hymns and hymn-music, as most of us know them :—“Hymns, such as we know them, are a sort of composition which I do not at all admire. I freely say so now, as I have often said it before. I regret their prevalence and popularity amongst us. Taking man in his totality and in the long run, bad music and bad poetry, to whatever good and useful purposes a man may often manage to turn them, are in themselves mischievous and deteriorating to him. Somewhere and somehow, and at some time or other, he has to pay a penalty and to suffer a loss for taking delight in them. It is bad for people to hear such words and such a tune as the words or tune of, O happy place ! when shall I be, my God, with



thee, to see thy face ?-worse for them to take pleasure in it. And the time will come, I hope, when we shall feel the unsatisfactoriness of our present hymns, and they will disappear from our religious services.” But so long as Doddridge, Watts, and Wesley are still sung in Dissenting holes and corners, Mr. Arnold sees an opening for a sop to the Dissenters :—“Here are means for offering, without public detriment, a concession to Dissenters, and for gratifying their wishes. Many of them would like, in burying their friends, to sing a hymn at the grave. Let them.” Was ever “Barbarian” or dominie more gracious ? But this is not all that these unseemly Dissenters are to have, out of the special grace and mere bounty of their betters :-“The hymn at the grave is not the only concession which we can without public detriment make in this matter to the Dissenters. Many Dissenters prefer to bury their dead in silence. .. To silent funerals in the parish churchyard there can manifestly be, on the score of order, propriety, and dignity, no objection.

Whenever, therefore, it is desired that burial in the parish churchyard should take place in silence, the clergyman should be authorized and directed to comply with this desire.” With these alternatives before him, what more can the nonconforming minion want ? He may sing a hymn, if he likes; or he may hold his tongue if he likes.

Having dispensed these “mercies,” Mr. Arnold puts on his scallop-cap, takes up his pilgrim staff, and turns his back on the whole lot. “ And now I do really take leave of the question of Church and Dissent, as I promised.”

But we should like to utter one word more than a joyful good-bye. Mr. Arnold quotes the Times as saying that some of the Dissenting preachers are becoming the equals of the best and ablest of those in the Church of England. It is possible that a “watchful spirit of jealousy may not permit some of the Nonconformists to be satisfied with this compliment. At all events, Dr. Martineau, in his Introduction to Mr. Tayler's “Retrospect,” says of the Independents that " in Biblical theology and in philosophy their attainments are carried, among the regularly trained men, considerably beyond the standard which satisfies the Church.”

There is one other remark which may be made upon this book. The name of Bishop Wilson does not, we believe, occur from end to end of it. If it does, we have missed it.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

THIS volume of 400 pages contains matter which will be in great part of it new

to the readers of this REVIEW, though several of the papers will be

recognized at once. Mr. Fairbairn modestly tells us that his essays are only “ tentative”-studies preliminary to a work on The Philosophy and History of Religion.” A glance at the author's general scheme will show that they can only be parerga ; but it would be a great mistake to treat them lightly. They are the work of a student who is also an independent thinker, and we suspect they will be more used than referred to by name. In these reading days there is a great fancy for calling books of this kind “suggestive”—when they are mentioned at all—and quietly appropriating the suggestions. Sometimes the literary disguise is intentionally taken up; sometimes half-unconsciously. One is not always sure whether to call attention to a valuable work is the best service that can be tendered to the author. However, this is not a book for “ cram,” though the references to authorities are very abundant, and the amount of information conveyed in small compass is great indeed. We have here, as the author tells us, “the results of thought and

By A. M. Fairbairn.

* Studies in the Philosophy of Religion and History. London and Belfast: William Mullan & Son.



3 s

inquiry”-only we must lay stress upon the word "results,” for nobody new to such topics would find his way through a single chapter. Mr. Fairbairn claims to be more than a lecturer or expounder: he gives you his opinions involved with the facts; and even becomes here and there a shade too much of the preacher. At least it strikes us so. It may be ever so true that Dr. Draper is a shallow thinker as well as a slipshod writer, and that his method in “The Conflict of Religion and Science" is a bad one; but the pages in which Mr. Fairbairn deals with the ques. tion raised by that book are almost too expatiatory. The tendency to a more than dominie gravity and fulness of style is, we submit, Mr. Fairbairn's rock ahead.

Mr. Fairbairn has so constructed his Index as to make it a sort of reasoned account of his volume, so that, in spite of the fear we have expressed about the unacknowledged uses to which such books may be put, we are tempted to give the conspectus of that portion of the work which deals with the history of civilization in different races :

I. Civilization.

Relation of Modern to Ancient.

The Individual and Society.
II. The Races—Their Pre-Historic State.

The Indo-European.

The Semitic.
III. The Fresh Races and the Old Cultures.

The New Civilizations not simply Imitations of Old.
Their Efficient and their Suggestive Cause.
Influence of Geographical Position and Ethnic Relations,

1. On Assyria.
2. On Phænicia.
Semitic Character of their Civilizations.

Rome. The first section of the work is on “The Idea of God-Its Genesis and Development;" the second on “ Theism and Scientific Speculation;" the third section is devoted to The Belief in Immortality,” which is followed up in both Greece and India. In the fourth section, Mr. Fairbairn discusses the place of the IndoEuropean and Semitic Races in History, under the heads of Civilization, Religion, Literature, and Philosophy; and the last great name we encounter in the book is that of Spinoza. Students and thinkers are so busy all over the civilized world with topics of this order, that even while a book like this is going through the press, new material is growing and gathering; and we shall be glad to learn in due time what so competent a writer as Mr. Fairbairn has to say, for example, upon the question of mythology among the Hebrews. In the meanwhile we commend these essays to students.

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

T is to be hoped that the author of “Orion” is not ashamed of the “Good.

[ocr errors]

natured Bear,” or “The London Doll.” Indeed, we may be sure he is not; and

the days are gone by in which there could be any reason of publishing etiquette or policy for keeping the nursery tales and the epic poem apart even in a catalogue.

* Cicely's Choice: With a Frontispiece by A. J. Pasquier.
Giles's Minority: or, Scenes at the Red House. With Eight Illustrations.

In Dr. Johnson's otherwise admirable Life of Dr. Isaac Watts, there is one very stupid remark. After referring to the “Catechism,” and the “ Divine and Moral Songs,” Johnson says that any one acquainted with the ordinary play of human motives will look with reverence upon a writer who is one moment engaged in

combating Locke,” and another moment stooping to write for children. It is rather surprising that “the great Cham of literature” did not bethink himself before writing thus; for in all ages there have been examples of speculative writers and distinguished men of action who have been fond of children. As printed literature has increased in volume, the examples have become more numerous, or at all events more readily quotable; but between termini as wide apart as Dr. Watts and Victor Hugo, a long list could be made out.

As far back as 1851, the author of " Orion" wrote in Household Words a long and, in some respects, questionable article, entitled “A Witch in the Nursery.” It was about Literature for the Young, and it contained, towards the close the following paragraph :

[ocr errors]

“ What is to be done for children in this matter? The first step towards a reform that will strike most people, is by no means so easy of practical accomplishment. Some years ago, the author of The Good-natured Bear,-a Story for Children of All Ages,' went to a publisher, eminent for his juvenile books, and proposed the following work. He wished to awaken parents and guardians of children to the condition of nursery literature, and to warn them against a heap of favourite' books and tales as of most injurious tendency. The publisher was struck with the proposal ; but after some days' consideration, he demurred to it, on the ground of the large amount of capital already embarked by many respectable houses in the trade in these very books; hundreds of thousands of which were profusely illustrated, and great numbers beautifully bound; he therefore thought it would seem invidious towards the trade, and that his motives would, at best, be misconstrued. The Good-natured Bear saw some reason in this, or, at any rate, received it as a good commercial objection ; and, bowing to fate, agreed to modify his original proposal. Instead of denouncing all the bad books and tales by name, with all their death-dealing and alarming illustrations, he now proposed to denounce them only in general terms, on broad principles,—and to specify by name only such books, tales, and songs as were good-beautiful and poetical in spirit, or humorous and amusing; and in no case containing cruelties, horrors, vices, and terrors of any kind. The publisher rubbed his hands with a beaming smile. This will do, said he; “this will do; and, by the way, I have myself published a number of books, exactly of this latter kind-beautiful in poetry, amiable in prose, humorous and amusing in spirit; and the illustrations and binding among the best in the trade; all of which you would, no doubt, specially mention. The Good-natured Bear was carried, fainting, into a cab.

“Where is a reform in the nursery library to come from? A real reform, both in the spirit and the letter, and not asham,' that will look well in the advertisements ? One cannot expect it to come from the children ; for they are fascinated by what they fear. Almost as little reasonable will it be to expect such a reform to originate with the publishers of children's books, nearly all of whose present stock in trade is full of the old leaven of direct evil, or reckless fun. The real reform must begin with the parents. Directly they begin to think, the publishers will feel it, and respond.”


Since the day when the Good-natured Bear got into these troubles with publishers,—which were typical, publishers being very much alike all the world over,there have been great changes in children's literature. This has been partly, if not mainly, the result of the appearance of Andersen upon the scene. With all the

Deborah's Drawer: With Nine Illustrations.

Daisy's Companions : or, Scenes from Child Life. A Story for Little Girls. With Eight Illustrations.

Little Prescription and other Tales. With Six Illustrations.
Doll World: or, Play and Earnest. A Study from Real Life.

With Eight Illustrations by C. A. Saltmarsh.

All these books are by Mrs. Robert O'Reilly, and are published by Messrs. George Bell and Sons, London.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »