« السابقةمتابعة »
certain adjunct to the Buddhist temples at Bangkok, called the Pra-cha-di, and the small chambers found in the Pyramids of Egypt. The Pra-cha-di is a solid building of masonry, without aperture or inlet of any sort, however large the building may be. It is generally built in the neighborhood of some temple, but is not itself an object or place of worship, being always distinct from the temple. In its origin it would appear to have been sepulchral, and destined to commemorate either the death of Buddha or his translation into heaven. These ornamental buildings are supposed to contain some relict of Buddha. They are built upon a series of terraces, which gradually diminish to half the whole height, and are then succeeded by a handsome spire, fluted and ornamented. They are about 250 feet high.
The design of the small chambers of the Pyramids of Egypt has been variously explained; some considering them as sepulchral depositories, and others as adyta of the more sacred and retired mysteries. The truth possibly may be that each conjecture is correct, and that in the office of a sepulchral shrine, as well as in form, the Pyramid and the Pracha-di exactly coincide. The Pra-cha-di is the same structure that is called Dagoba by the Buddhists of Ceylon. Several circumstances and ceremonies in the religion of Buddha would seem to identify its origin, in a great measure, with that of ancient Egypt. The physiognomy, the form and stature of Buddha are as distinctly Ethiopic as they are different from those which characterize the various tribes which inhabit either the eastern or the western parts of Asia. That it is a religion foreign to that continent, the uncertainty which still exists with regard to the country or district which gave it birth would seem to render probable. The proofs which have been brought forward in favor of Ceylon and of Magodha seem to rest upon very slender foundations. Several festivals in this religion bear a strong resemblance to the ceremonies performed by the ancient Egyptians on the rising of the Nile. That called Periharah is of this nature. Are not the Egyptian Pyramids the prototype of the Pra-cha di or Dagoba ? And in. stead of considering these stupendous monuments as the tombs
of earthly kings, ought we not rather to regard them as owing their origin to religious motives? It is scarcely possible to believe that any other motive could have induced men to undertake works of such magnitude. The small chambers found in the interior of some of them might have contained, or, at least, have been intended to contain relics, such as bones of their deity. And this idea is confirmed by the finding of bones of the bull in the sarcophagus of the pyramid of Cephrenes.*
The significance of the statue and legend of the Egyptian king, in connection with the great Siamese temple of Ongkoor, should not be lost sight of, nor shonld the common use of the word “ Phra” (Pharaoh) as a title of the Siamesc kings. Then there are the similarities between some of the customs of Siam and of ancient Egypt. What does all this point to but to the fact that at some very remote period the Egyptians, or a people identical with them, held sway over that portion of the globe which comprises Siam, Cambodia, and Cochin China ? But the Egyptians were red-skinned, and the Siamese are a mixture of black, yellow, and white, and there are no vestiges of a red race among them. Either, then, the length of time which has elapsed since the red men were there has been enormous, or there has been some great change in the face of the globe, which severed those of the race in Asia froin those in Egypt and America, the Atlantide races, of whom little but tradition is left in the old world, but some of whose immense structures can still be seen in certain islands of the Pacific.
But this is all speculation. The wonderful architectural remains of Siam and Cambodia offer a field of investigation which has as yet been only superficially approached by unlearned travellers. They require to be examined by men like Layard or Rawlinson or Champallion ; and doubtless the present enlightened ruler of the country would facilitate and assist every research by persons duly qualified. Enough has been said to show that Siam at the present moment offers singular attractions for foreigners, as their services are required in a
* Fitzclarence's Route through India and Egypt to England, p. 499.
variety of ways. Americans, Englishmen and Frenchmen are already there in numbers, superintending faetories, constructing machinery, building steamships and locomotives, making telegraph and railway lines, organizing the military and marine services, preaching Christianity, teaching in schools, and generally changing the habits, elerating the character, and developing the intelligence of the people. It is curious to speculate on what Siam will be fifty years hence.
ART. IL-1. The Life and Writings of Refrs CHOATE. By
SAMUEL GILMAN Browx, Professor in Dartmouth College.
Two volumes. 1862. Boston. 2. Reminiscences of Rufus CHOATE, the Great American Ad
cocate. By EDWARD G. PARKER. 1860. Boston. 3. Proceedings of the Bar upon the Death of Refrs CHATE,
in 1859, and the Address of Professor THEOPHILUS Parsons, at the Cambridge Law School, upon him as a
Lawyer. : 4. The Speech of Rufts CHOATE in the Dalton Divorce Case;
also, The Celebrated Trial of Firrell, the Somnambulist, for Murder. Pamphlets.
Prose is the machinery of civilized society. It grew up with civilization. In the early ages men talked, but all great events were first chanted or sang. Bards preceded historians and prose writers. Indeed, eloquence and prose writing were emanations after mankind had made some progress in civilization. In the contests of these times the passions were excited by war songs and by the enchantment of the bard. Language was then meagre and these songs were simple but full of tropes, as illustration supplies the dearth of words. So, in that age, speech followed the same law; and the first prose of any people is simple in structure and bold in figures. It is also usually irregular and is improved with the advancement of the people. Speech is a composite achievement. It is about the last achievement of civilization in nations when we speak of its best fornis. The period of literary purity in Rome and Greece survived the age of pure eloquence, and then prose writers preceded the orators. Indeed, oratory, as high art, is an outgrowth of ages in every free state. Like all the fine arts, it is of slow growth. Speaking has always existed in every society in some form, but oratory is not effective except when men have understandings to be addressed as well as passions.
In every free state, where the people govern, oratory has ever been the great instrument to control and carry on society; and in free states the greatest examples of eloquence have appeared. It was at the Revolution that popular eloquence first appeared among us, though we had existed as colonies for a century and a half. Since that age America has had clever orators, and has not been without men who could take high rank as public speakers. We certainly can claim that there are more men who can address a public body intelligently and well in this country than can be found in any other civilized state. Yet we will not assert that among these innumerable speakers we could find many first-class speakers, as ranged by a high standard of eloquence. Surely none will pretend that we have had many men whose speeches would sustain a comparison with the first orators. We know that we fail in the art of eloquence rather than in the substantials of speaking; but we realize that the revolutionary age gave us Henry and Lee, Otis and Adams, and since we have produced several noble speakers. Nobody questions that Webster and Olay hold à place among the great speakers of modern times. The best specimens of eloquence have so far been of the deliberative order, and from the interest taken in public affairs we shall always find eloquence in this department. The Pulpit ought to present an equal field for oratory, but nearly all effective eloquence is banished there by the reading of sermons. So long as this practice remains the American pulpit will never compare with the eloquence of the Bar or of the Senate for the effect produced by delivery. No speaker can look after a written speech or sermon and command and sway his audience. Let the ministry study extemporaneous eloquence and speak thirty minutes, with adequate preparation, and eloquence will gain what logic may lose in pulpit oratory.
But we turn to the American bar, where eloquence has shone forth and where the first talents are trained and displayed. Society is interested in her lawyers, for they fashion and make the laws and stand guardian to person and property. It is the lawyer who defends all rights of person and property, and withont him those rights could not be adjudicated upon in the courts. His calling is devoted to the great interests of society itself, and so he becomes, by his vocation, a counsellor of men and of the state. The science of law begins with the foundation of the state, and he necessarily becomes cognizaut of the laws in all their complexity. So the lawyer first studies fundamental, constitutional principles on which depend the rights of men. He then advances to the laws of property and of person. Thus trained, he appears as a counsel and an advocate. In a crude state of society he partakes of all the qualities of such a state, and his qualifications seldom exceed the demand, and we pass out of a semi-barbarous state before we find the accomplished advocate and great jurisconsult. This great and finished barrister comes with civilization, and he is the necessity of it. It needs no proofs that when society has risen to the complications of a great state, where law is supreme, there must be such an office as that of the great legist. Thus the profession grows with the state and the laws. They are co-ordinate with each other.
From the beginning of these colonies the laws have required a learned profession, and perhaps we have erred in the facilities to its growth. Whether this be so or not the profession comprises its necessary men-men who sustain the learning and repute of the bar in every branch of society, and secure the rights of every hamlet in the land. So much for the necessity of the profession. Without it nothing would be secure