صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

demning him; and even when he does find fault, he is obliged to admit that his rival has great merits. As his remarks are historical as well as critical, and show that those Roman educators who were not prejudiced availed themselves of the teachings of the philosopher, we transcribe them here:

"Of Seneca I have purposely delayed to speak, in reference to any department of eloquence, on account of a false report that has been circulated respecting me, from which I was supposed to condemn, and even to hate him. This happened to me while I was striving to bring back our style of speaking, which was spoiled and enervated by every kind of fault, to a more severe standard of taste. At that time Seneca was almost the only writer in the hands of the young. I was not desirous for my own part to set him aside altogether, but I could not allow him to be preferred to those better authors whom he never ceased to attack, since, being conscious that he had adopted a different style from theirs, he distrusted his power of pleasing those by whom they were admired. But his partisans rather admired than succeeded in imitating him, and fell as far below him as he had fallen below the older writers. Yet it had been desirable that his followers should have been equal to him, or at least have made near approaches to him; but he attracted them only by his faults, and each of them set himself to copy in him what he could; and then, when they began to boast that they wrote like him, they brought dishonour on his name. Still he had many and great merits; a ready and fertile wit, extraordinary application, and extensive knowledge on various subjects, though he was sometimes deceived by those he had employed to make researches for him. He has written on almost every department of learning: for there are orations of his, and poems, and letters, and dialogues in circulation. In philosophy he was not sufficiently accurate, though an admirable assailant of vices. There are many bright thoughts in him, and much that may be read for moral improvement, but most of his phraseology is in a vitiated taste, and most hurtful to students, for the very reason that it abounds in pleasing faults. We could wish that he had written from his own mind, and under the control of another person's judgment: for if he had rejected some of his thoughts, if he had not fixed his affections on small beauties, if he had not been in love with every thing that he conceived, if he had not weakened the force of his matter by petty attempts at sententiousness, he would have been honoured with the unanimous consent of the learned, rather than the admiration of boys. Yet, such as he is, he ought to be read by those whose judgment is matured, and whose minds have been strengthened by a severer manner of writing, if with no other object than that the reader may exercise his judgment for and against him; for, as I said, there is much in him worthy of approval, and much deserving of admiration; only it must be our care to choose judiciously, as I wish that he himself had done, since natural powers, that could accomplish whatever they pleased, were worthy of having better objects to accomplish."*

The animus of the rival is apparent in this throughout. It shows that if Quintilian was accused of hating, or at least, of disliking Seneca, it was not without good The former was by no means pleased to find the

reason.

* De Institutione Oratore. Lib. c. 125.

latter preferred to other writers; and, as to the style of Seneca, it is vastly more lucid than that of his critic. The latinity of Seneca is not Augustan, as we have already remarked; but neither is that of Quintilian. The latter is not only the most prosy of all the Latin writers; he is also the most obscure. He has no originality; no warmth; whereas Seneca possesses both in a high degree. Seneca had the same idea of style which he had of dress; he thought that the philosopher, or even the orator, should set but little value on either; whereas Quintilian depended nearly as much on the choice of words as on the choice of ideas; and yet his language is by no means a model. In addition to this, Diderot reminds us that one was a professor of elocution, the other a professor of philosophy; and that, while one remained a schoolmaster, the other became a prime minister.†

This is quite sufficient to account for the adverse criticisms of Quintilian, at the same time, it would be unjust to deny that education in general, especially oratory, owes much to the author of De Institutione Oratore. Far be it from us to say one word in depreciation of so judicious and excellent an instructor; we merely want to show that, although he is, in general, a most impartial critic, it is unfair to judge Seneca by his estimate, since he had a motive to condemn, to which few minds are superior. We are quite as much disposed to vindicate one as the other. Accordingly, we readily admit that Quintilian was more moral in his practice than Seneca; but we hold that the philosopher was a much more profound thinker than the elocutionist; and, that much good as the writings. of the latter have done, those of the former have done vastly more.

It must ever be deplored that, for at least a portion of his life, Seneca was licentious; and that, if he was not actually guilty of crime, it is too evident that he was not always actuated in his conduct by honorable motives. But he has made ample amends for his errors in his writings. Whatever mischief he did in his time it was very slight when placed in the balance against the

* "Neatness of style, he says, is no manly ornament." (Non est ornamentum virile cincinnatas.)-Ep. cxv.

+ Quintilien naquit la seconde année du règne de Claude: alors Sénèque avait quitté le barreau. Celui-ci professa la philosophie, l'autre l'art oratoire. Tous deux furent instituteurs des grands; mais Quintilien resta maître d'école, et Séneque devint ministre."-Essai sur la Vie de Sénèque, par M. Diderot, chap. cvii.

incalculable service which he rendered mankind by his ethics, altogether independently of his philosophy.

ART. II.-1. History of Rationalism. By REV. JOHN F. HURST, M. A. New York: Scribner & Co.

1865.

2. The Church and the Churches. By Dr. DÖLLINGER.

don. 1866.

Lon

CHRISTIANITY has now had a sway, complete or imperfect as it may have been, of nineteen centuries, over the fairest and most highly favoured portions of the world. Whether the founders of this religious system had, at first, a clear knowledge of the extent to which the results of their labours were destined to reach, or whether the aspiration to universal conquest grew upon them gradually, as success crowned their efforts, is a point upon which varying opinions may be entertained, even by the most professedly orthodox. The geographical knowledge of the most learned contemporaries of the first apostles, was somewhat limited; nor are we required to believe that these first preachers of the Word, had, by inspiration, or otherwise, any superiority over their neighbours in the acquisition of human science. No authoritative teaching of any Church requires its members to believe that the authentic biographers had the assistance of inspiration in the narration of historical facts, or in the recording of truths not necessary or useful to salvation.

We may safely assert, then, that the apostles, and even Christ himself, regarded as a human being, when speaking of the "whole world," spoke in accordance with common usage around them, and, consequently, what appeared to them to be the whole world, or the "universe, was, in reality, but a portion of it. This might be more clearly shown by referring to the usage of sacred writers antecedent to the Christian epoch, such as may be seen in the prophets, and notably in the Pentateuch. When Tertullian, in the second century, gloried that the Church was known to the ends of the earth, he must have spoken in the same sense, and given his limited knowledge an unlimited expression. It is not very likely, or, at least, it would not be very rash to deny, that the new ideas had been borne to all nations, especially as there were then many countries with pop

ulous cities and civilized communities entirely unknown. But Tertullian was a rhetorician, and it is not probable that his faith would deny him the modest use of a figure of speech. It is fair to state, then, that the first propagators of the gospel may not have entertained the idea of universal dominion for their religious principles; and, that they were as well satisfied with the progress made by their doctrines in that early period, as the Christians of the present day are content with the result of their own labours to the same end.

Had they equally good grounds to support that feeling of satisfaction? Upon examination, their labours will appear to have partaken largely of that spirit of self-devotion so explicitly recommended in the writings of the first apostles. A more cordial co-operation than that exhibited in the labours of the multifarious forms of Christianity in our day, distinguished the original followers of the Galilean regenerator. Their action was more combined, whilst it enjoyed more unrestricted freedom from conventional rule.

These two qualities must have wonderfully aided in the attainment of success. They evinced less anxiety, and, in fact, had less need to oppose the divergent opinions that began to be developed in the nascent Church, than we witness around us at the present day. Perhaps, too, circumstances lent them better aid. A degeneracy had taken place in the natural civilization which had for ages diffused its influence over the nations of antiquity, and the colossus of the Roman tyranny was about to topple from its own corruption. When, at a later period, the barbarians of the North had shattered to pieces the crumbling mass, they could not help being awed by the majestic ruins, nor could they deny the science of those whom they had enslaved.

Physical force, whilst dominant over mental greatness, must yield ulteriorly to the invincible superiority of the latter. Since this is the order of nature, whose laws constitute the providence of God, we need not be surprised at the numerous evidences of it in the history of our race in the past, whilst we may with greater confidence rely upon its fuller manifestation in the future. In this principle we may discover a reason which will explain the success that crowned the efforts of Christianity in the first centuries of our era. The advocates of religion pretend, whether wisely or not we do not now discuss, that this success must be ascribed to miraculous VOL. XVII.-NO. XXXIII. 3

intervention-to supernatural, or, at least, preternatural

agency.

No sooner had idolatry fallen, and triumph crowned the general principles of Christianity, than its human elements began to develop themselves in the form of internal discord and external disunion. Men, high in authority, were more desirous of preserving their personal pre-eminence, than of propagating the doctrines of their religion. Even in the Council of Nice, looked upon by all Christians as the first ecumenical assembly, the congregated bishops required the yet unbaptized Constantine, to compel his subjects by physical force to embrace the predominant doctrines decreed in the Council. This example soon became universal in the Church, and from that remote period, down to the past century, we are presented with the edifying spectacle of Christians using the fervid arguments of fire and sword, in order to convince each other of true Christian virtue.

This spirit is, however, but feebly represented in the present age. That there are still some who would too willingly lend a hand in piling up the stake to test the obstinacy of a dissenting brother, cannot be denied. by any person who has taken the pains to learn the secret wishes of some religionists. But, in our opinion, the time for such arguments has passed away, never to return; and the only persuasion that can henceforth be effective in propagating religious doctrines, must be grounded on reason and charity. This is nothing more than reverting to the too often neglected teaching of the divine Founder of Christianity. The religious party that ignores this truth, and adheres to antiquated notions of intolerance and domination by forcible means, is but an obstruction to its own aspirations-clogging the wheels of its own progress, and drying up the fountains of sympathy between itself and advancing humanity.

These brief considerations, necessarily prefatory to what we have to say, will lead us to view the most prominent features which the Christian world of the present day presents to us. We must confine our judgment to the external form, indeed, although from this we may frequently divine the internal spirit. But as not even the Catholic Church pretends to judge the internal life of her own members, much less do we presume to pass judgment upon the spirit of any denomination, or of any individual. We can only judge that of which we have cognizance, and which is subject to our perception.

« السابقةمتابعة »