critiques-by Landor, by Shelley, by Bul- | finement of the disciple. Yet, even Socrates wer, by Sir Daniel Sandford, by Emerson, in the picture of Plato is not for a moment and others, on these redoubted heroes of the to be compared to the Carpenter of Nazareth, Grecian philosophy; but we forget if any of as represented by his biographer, John, the them excel this of our author in clearness of Fisherman of Galilee. We shall quote, by statement, discrimination, sympathy with the and by, the fine passage in which Mr. Rogers period, and appreciation of the merits of the draws the comparison between the two. two magnificent men. Old Socrates, with To Plato as a thinker and writer ample his ugly face, his snub nose, his strong head justice is done. Perhaps too little is said for standing liquor, his restless habits, his against that slipslop which in his writings so subtle irony, the inimitable dialogue on which often mingles with the sublimity. They are be made his enemies to slide down, as on a often, verily, strange symposia which he demountain-side of ice, from the heights of scribes-a kind of Noctes Ambrosiana, swarmself-consequent security to the depths of de- ing here with bacchanalian babblement and feat and exposure; his sublime common- there with sentences and sayings which might sense, his subtle yet homely dialectics; open- have been washed down with nectar. They ing up mines of gold by the wayside, and are intensely typical of the ancient Grecian getting the gods to sit on the roof of the mind, of its heights and its depths, its unnahouse; his keen raillery, his power of sophis- tural vices and its lofty ideals of art. In ticating sophists, and his profound knowledge their conception of beauty the Greeks apof his own nescience, is admirably daguerreo- proximated the ideal, but their views of God typed. With equal power, the touches lent and of man were exceedingly imperfect. to him by the genius of his disciple are dis- Hence their disgusting vices; hence their criminated from the native traits. Plato, to sacrifice of every thing to the purposes of art; say the least of it, has colored the photo- hence the sensuality of their genius when graph of Socrates with the tints of his own compared to that of the Gothic nations; fine and fiery imagination; or he has acted hence the resistance offered by their philosoas a painter when he puts a favorite picture phers to Christianity, which appeared to in the softest and richest light; or as a poet them "foolishness;" hence Platonism, the when he visits a beautiful scene by moonlight; highest effort of their philosophy, seems less or as a lover when he gently lifts up the indigenous to Greece than Aristotelianism, image of his mistress across the line which and resembles an exotic transplanted from separated it from perfection. We often hear Egypt or Palestine. Except in Plato and of people throwing themselves into such Eschylus, there is little approach in the proand such a subject; there is another and a ductions of the Greek genius to moral sublirarer process that of adding oneself to mity or to a true religious feeling. Among such and such a character. You see a per- the prose writers of Greece, Aristotle and son who, added to yourself, would make, you Demosthenes more truly reflected the chathink, a glorious being, and you proceed to racter of the national mind than Plato. They idealize accordingly; you stand on his head, were exceedingly ingenious and artistic, the and outtower the tallest; you club your one in his criticism and the other in his orabrains with his, and are wiser than the wisest; tory, but neither was capable of the lowest you add the heat of your heart to his, and flights of Plato's magnificent prose-poetry. produce a very furnace of love. Thus Solo- Aristotle was, as Macaulay calls him, the mon might have written David's romantic "acutest of human beings;" but it was a cold, history, and given the latter, in addition to needle-eyed acuteness. As a critic, his great his courage, sincerity and lyric genius, his merit lay in deducing the principles of the own voluptuous fancy and profound acquire- epic from the perfect example set by Homer, ments. All biographers, indeed, possessed of like a theologian forming a perfect system of any strong individuality themselves, act very morality from the life of Christ; but this, much in this way when narrating the lives of though a useful process, and one requiring kindred spirits. And, certainly, it was thus much talent, is not of the highest order even that Plato dealt with Socrates. The Platonic of intellectual achievements, and has nothing Socrates is a splendid composite, including at all of the creative in it. It is but the the sagacity, strength, theological acumen, and work of an index-maker on a somewhat grand modesty, as of the statue of a kneel- larger scale. Demosthenes, Mr. Rogers, with ing god, which distinguished the master, and Lord Brougham and most other critics, vastly the philosophic subtlety, the high imagina- overrates. His speeches as delivered by himtion, the flowing diction and the exquisite re-self must have been overwhelming in their immediate effect, but really constitute, when read, morsels as dry and sapless as we ever tried to swallow. They are destitute of that “action, action, action," on which he laid so much stress, and having lost it, they have lost all. They have a good deal of clear pithy statement and some striking questions and apostrophes, but have no imagery, no depth of thought, no grasp, no grandeur, no genius Lord Brougham's speeches have been called "law-papers on fire :" the speeches of Demosthenes are law-papers with much less fire. To get at their merit we must apply the well known rule of Charles James Fox. He used to ask if such and such a speech read well; "if it did, it was a bad speech, if it did not; it was probably good." On this principle the orations of Demosthenes must be the best in the world, since they are about the dullest reading in it. Far otherwise with the golden sentences of Plato. Dry argument, half-hot with passion, is all Demosthenes can furnish. Plato "Has gifts in their most splendid variety and most harmonious combinations; rich alike in powers of invention and acquisition; equally massive and light; vigorous and muscular, yet pliable and versatile; master at once of thought and expression, in which originality and subtlety of intellect are surrounded by all the ministering aids of imagination, wit, humor, and eloquence, and the structure of his mind resembles some master-piece of classic architecture, in which the marble columns rise from their deep foundation exquisitely fashioned and proportioned, surmounted with elaborate and ornamented capitals, and supporting an entablature inscribed with all forms of the beautiful. the sage was all about shoemakers and tailors, carpenters and braziers."-p. 334. We promised to quote also his closing paragraph. Here it is, worthy in every respect of the author of the "Eclipse of Faith," and equal to its best passages : "We certainly hold the entire dramatic projection and representation of Socrates in the pages of Plato to be one of the most wonderful efforts of the human mind. In studying him it is impossible that his character as a teacher of ethics and his life-like mode of representation should not suggest to us another character yet more wonderfully depicted, and by the same most difficult of all methods-that of dramatic evolution by discourse and action; of one who taught a still purer, sublimer, and more consistent ethics, pervaded by a more intense spirit of humanity; of and more tender, who stands perfectly free from one whose love for our race was infinitely deeper those foibles which history attributes to the real Socrates, and from that too Protean facility of manners which, though designed by Plato as a compliment to the philosophic flexibility of his character of Socrates, really so far assimilated him with mere vulgar humanity; of one, too, whose sublime and original character is not only exhibited with the most wonderful dramatic skill, but in a style as unique as the character it embodies-a style of simple majesty, which, unlike that of Plato, is capable of being readily translated into every language under heaven; of one whose life was the embodiment of that virtue which Plato affirmed would entrance all hearts if seen, and whose death throws the prison-scenes of the "Phædo" utterly into the shade; of one, lastly, whose picture has arrested the admiring gaze of many who have believed it to be only a picture. Now, if we feel that the portraiture of Socrates in the pages of Plato involved the very highest exercise of the highest dramatic genius, and that the cause was no more than commensurate with the effect, it is a question which may well occupy the attention of a philosopher, how it came to pass that in one of the obscurest periods of the history of an obscure people, in the dregs of their literature and the lowest depths of superstitious dotage, so sublime a conception should have been so sublimely exhibited; how it was that the noblest truths found an oracle in the "Plato's style," Mr. Rogers proceeds, "is unrivalled he wielded at will all the resources of the most copious, flexible, and varied instrument of thought through which the mind of man has ever yet breathed the music of eloquence. Not less severely simple and refined when he pleases than Pascal, between whom and Plato many resemblances existed, as in beauty of intellect, in the delicacy of their wit, in aptitude for abstract science, and in moral wisdom; the Grecian philips of the grossest ignorance, and the maxims of losopher is capable of assuming every mood of thought, and of adopting the tone, imagery, and diction appropriate to each. Like Pascal, he can be by turns profound, sublime, pathetic, sarcastic, playful; but with a far more absolute command over all the varieties of manner and style. He could pass, by the most easy and rapid transitions, from the majestic eloquence which made the Greeks say that if Jupiter had spoken the language of mortals he would have spoken in that of Plato, to that homely style of illustration and those highly idiomatic modes of expression which mark the colloquial manner of his Socrates, and which, as Alcibiades in his eulogium observes, might induce a stranger to say that the talk of universal charity advocates in the hearts of the most selfish of narrow-minded bigots; in a word, who could be the more than Plato (or rather the many each more than Plato) who drew that radiant portrait, of which it may be truly said that a far greater than Socrates is here ?"—pp. 366, 377. Passing over a very ingenious paper on the "Structure of the English Language," we come to one on the British Pulpit," some of the statements in which are weighty and powerful, but some of which we compelled to controvert. Mr. Rogers begins by deploring the want of eloquence and are We think that if Christ's teaching be taken as the test and pattern, Mr. Rogers limits the range of preaching too much when he says its principal characteristics should be "practical reasoning and strong emotion." Preaching is not a mere hortatory matter. Sermons are the better of applications, but they should not be all application Ministers should remember to address mankind and their audiences as a whole, and should seek here to instruct their judgments and there to charm their imagination; here to allure and there to alarm; here to calm and there to arouse; here to reason away their doubts and prejudices, and there to awaken their emotions. Mr. Rogers disapproves of discussing first principles in the pulpit, and says, that "the Atheist and Deist are rarely found in Christian congregations." We wish we could believe this. If there are no avowed Atheists or Deists in our churches, there are, we fear, many whose minds are grievously unsettled and at sea on such subjects, and shall they be altogether neglected in the daily ministrations? Of what use to speak to them of justification by faith who think there is nothing to be believed, or of the new birth who do not believe in the old, but deem themselves fatherless children in a forsaken world. We think him decidedly too severe also in his condemnation of the use of scientific and literary language in the pulpit. Pedantry, indeed, and darkening counsel by technical language, we abhor, but elegant and scholarly diction may be combined with simplicity and clearness, and has a tendency to elevate the minds and refine the tastes of those who listen to it. It is of very little use coming down, as it is called, to men's level; now-a-days, if you do so, you will get nothing but contempt for your pains: you cannot, indeed, be too intelligible, but you may be so while using the loftiest imagery and language. Chalmers never "came down to men's level," and yet his discourses were understood and felt by the humblest of his audience, when by the energy of his genius and the power of his sympathies he lifted them up to his. of effect in the modern pulpit. There is | angel, as from the all-beautifying beams of undoubtedly too much reason for this com- dawn. plaint, although we think that in the present day it is not so much eloquence that men desiderate in preaching as real instruction, living energy, and wide variety of thought and illustration. Mr. Rogers says very little about the substance of sermons, and in what he does say seems to incline to that principle of strait-lacing which we thought had been nearly exploded. No doubt every preacher should preach the main doctrines of the gospel, but if he confine himself exclusively to these, he will limit his own sphere of power and influence. Why should he not preach the great general moralities as well? Why should he not tell, upon occasion, great political, metaphysical, and literary truths to his people, turning them, as they are so susceptible of being turned, to religious account? It will not do to tell us that preachers must follow the Apostles in every respect. Christ alone was a perfect model, and how easy and diversified his discourses! He had seldom any text. He spake of subjects as diverse from each other as are the deserts of Galilee from the streets of Jerusalem; the summit of Tabor from the tower of Siloam; the cedar of Lebanon from the hyssop springing out of the wall. He touched the political affairs of Judea, the passing incidents of the day, the transient controversies and heart-burnings of the Jewish sects, with a finger as firm and as luminous as he did the principles of morality and of religion. Hence, in part, the superiority and the suc cess of his teaching. It was a wide and yet not an indefinite and baseless. thing. It swept the circumference of Nature and of man, and then radiated on the cross as on a centre. It gathered an immense procession of things, thoughts, and feelings, and led them through Jerusalem and along the foot of Calvary. It bent all beings and subjects into its grand purpose, transfiguring them as they stooped before it. It was this catholic eclectic feature in Christ's teaching which, while it made many cry out, "Never man spake like this man," has created also some certain misconceptions of its character. Many think that he was at bottom nothing more than a Pantheistic poet, because he shed on all objects-on the lilies of the valley, the salt of the sea, the thorns of the wilderness, the trees of the field, the rocks of the mountain, and the sands of the sea shore-that strange and glorious light which he brought with him to earth and poured around him as from the wide wings of an Mr. Rogers thinks that all preachers aspiring to power and usefulness will "abhor the ornate and the florid," and yet it is remarkable that the most powerful and the most useful, too, of preachers have been the most ornate and florid. Who more ornate than Isaiah? Who spoke more in figures and parables than Jesus? Chrysostom, of the "golden mouth," belonged to the same school. South sneers at Jeremy Taylor, and Rogers very unworthily reěchoes the sneer; but | what comparison between South the sneerer and Taylor the sneered at, in genius or in genuine power and popularity? To how many a cultivated mind has Jeremy Taylor made religion attractive and dear, which had hated and despised it before? Who more florid than Isaac Taylor, and what writer of this century has done more to recommend Christianity to certain classes of the community? He, to be sure, is no preacher; but who have been or are the most popular and most powerful preachers of the age? Chalmers, Irving, Melville, Hall; and amid their many diversities in point of intellect, opinion, and style, they agree in this, that they all abound in figurative language and poetical imagery. And if John Foster failed in preaching, it was certainly not from want of imagination, which formed, indeed, the staple of all his best discourses. Mr. Rogers, to be sure, permits a "moderate use of the imagination;" but, strange to say, it is the men who have made a large and lavish use of it in preaching who have most triumphantly succeeded. Of course they have all made their imagination subservient to a high purpose; but we demur to his statement that no preacher will ever employ his imagination merely to delight us. He will not indeed become constantly the minister of delight; but he will and must occasionally, in gratifying himself with his own fine fancies, give an innocent and intense gratification to others, and having thus delighted his audience, mere gratitude on their part will prepare them for listening with more attention and interest to his solemn appeals at the close. He says that the splendid description in the "Antiquary" of a sunset would be altogether out of place in the narrative by a naval histo:ian of two fleets separated on the eve of engagement by a storm, or in any serious narrative or speech; forgetting that the "Antiquary" professes to be a serious narrative, and that Burke, in his speeches and essays, has often interposed in critical points of narration descriptions quite as long and as magnificent, which, nevertheless, so far from exciting laughter, produce the profoundest impression, blending, as they do, the energies and effects of fiction and poetry with those of prose and fact. fluence which more genial and fanciful authors have exerted. For one who reads South, ten thousand revel in Jeremy Taylor. Howe, a very imaginative and rather diffuse writer, has supplanted Baxter in general estimation. In Scotland, while the dry sermons of Ebenezer Erskine are neglected, the lively and fanciful writings of his brother Ralph have still a considerable share of popularity. The works of Chalmers and Cumming, destined as both are in due time to oblivion, are preserved in their present life by what in the first is real, and in the second a semblance of imagination. Of the admirable writings of Dr. Harris and of the two Hamiltons we need not speak. Latimer, South, and Baxter, whom Rogers ranks so highly, are not classics. Even Jonathan Edwards and Butler, with all their colossal talent, are now little read, on account of their want of imagination. The same vital deficiency has doomed the sermons of Tillotson, Atterbury, Sherlock, and Clarke. Indeed, in order to refute Mr. Rogers, we have only to recur to his own words, quoted above: “This faculty, fancy namely, is incomparably the most important for the vivid and attractive exhibition of truth to the minds of men." It follows that since the great object of preaching is to exhibit truth to the minds of men, fancy is the faculty most needful to the preacher, and that the want of it is the most fatal of deficiencies. In fact, although a few preachers have, through the agonistic methods, by pure energy and passion, produced great effects, these have been confined chiefly to their spoken speech, have not been transferred to their published writings, and have speedily died away. It is the same in other kinds of oratory. Fox's eloquence, which studied only immediate effect, perished with him, and Pitt's likewise. Burke's, being at once highly imaginative and profoundly wise, lives, and will live for ever. We have not room to enlarge on some other points in the paper. We think Mr. Rogers lays far too much stress on the time a preacher should take in composing his sermons. Those preachers who spend all the week in finical polishing of periods and intense elaboration of paragraphs are not the most efficient or esteemed. A well-furnished mind, animated by enthusiasm, will throw forth in a few hours a sermon incomparably That severely simple and agonistic style, superior in force, freshness, and energy, to which Mr. Rogers recommends so strongly, those discourses which are slowly and toilhas been seldom practised in Britain, except somely built up. It may be different somein the case of Baxter, with transcendent effect. times with sermons which are meant for pubAt all events, the writings of those who have lication. Yet some of the finest published followed it have not had a tithe of the in-sermons in literature have been written at a heat. THERE are few sensations more startling | elapsed, they were frightened in proportion. and unpleasant than that which is occasioned | At Naples one cannot but be conscious that by even the slightest of those movements of the earth's surface to which we equally give the name of earthquake, whatever may be the degree of their intensity, or the nature of their effects. Our imperfect knowledge of the causes which produce them, and of the laws of nature by which they are regulated, increases our alarm; and as we have no sure warning of their approach, and are their helpless victims when they come, we may be thankful that they are not of more frequent occurrence. They are fearful in every way: for where they have once been destructively felt, they leave an impression as to the possibility of their return, which, at times, comes disagreeably across the mind, even in our moments of enjoyment. A writer, whose work was noticed last month,* speaking of Lisbon, says: "Some traces of the great earthquake still remain; here and there, a huge windowless, roofless, and roomless mass, picturesque by moonlight, but saddening by day; fearful memento of wrath, stands to tell the tale of that terrible convulsion. Slight shocks are continually felt, and when I was in Lisbon, about five years ago, were so unusually powerful, that some fear was excited lest a recurrence of this calamity were imminent. The Portuguese have a theory, that nature takes a hundred years to produce an earthquake on a grand scale, and as that period had nearly * Hither and Thither. VOL. XXXIII.-NO. II. the city is built over hidden fires;' on one side is the ever-active Vesuvius, and on the other the Solfatara, and an evident communication exists between them. Hot springs and steaming sulphur poison the air everywhere; but at Lisbon no such signs exist; here is nothing but a soil prolific beyond measure- no streams of lava no hills of calcined stones, thrown up 1500 feet in one night (as the Monte Nuovo, near Naples)no smoking craters-no boiling water struggling into day. Still, the belief that Lisbon will again be destroyed by a similar throe of nature is prevalent, and perpetuated year after year by the recurrence of slight shocks." In treating of earthquakes, we cannot seek our materials in the remoter periods of history. It is remarkable that in the records of the Old Testament there are only, I believe, three passages in which they are mentioned. One of them is part of the well-known description of the appearances attending the revelation of the Almighty will to Elijah. The others refer to the one event of an earthquake in the days of Uzziah, King of Judah-not quite 800 years B. C., and from the language in which it is alluded to, we may infer that such convulsions were then of unusual occurrence. It is in comparatively modern times that The old And crazy earth has had her shaking-fits More frequent. 14 |