Page images
PDF
EPUB

coherent and strong, that they might test it with all their force of intellect, and detect its flaws. He, it is true, did not supply the key to the machinery of argument employed; for that would have defeated his object, and lessened the marvel of his irrefragable deductions. He composed for publication no logic of analogy; but that he had elaborated the whole logic of that form of inference for the ground-plan of his treatise there is no doubt. Indeed, from his work, the whole theory of reasoning by analogy might be compiled, either by extract, inference, or exemplification.

The peculiarity of Butler's genius was that it was architectural and systematic. He looked on nature as a scheme and course; on religion as a system and an agency; on life as a work and a progress; on thought as a power and gift; and on logic as a structure of itself, but capable of being employed as a subsidiary and aid in the erection of an edifice much nobler than itselfthe temple of truth. Of the nature, foundation, and measure of probability; of the justness, conclusiveness, and innate source of reasoning by analogy; of the extent, compass, and force of the logic of likeness; of the species of arguments which outweigh contradictions, educe presumptions, excite opinions, suggest probabilities, give birth to convictions, and impress by their persuasiveness, he gives no formal exposition. "This belongs," he says, "to the subject of logic, and is a part of that subject which has not yet been thoroughly considered." But it is evident from the form of the work, and from its unrivalled relevancy and effectiveness, that he had the logic of analogy well systematized in his mind, that he carefully controlled his argumentation by its laws.

We have, in the introductory observations to this paper, endeavoured to give explicit form to this logic, with what effect our readers must judge. We hope our synopsis may be useful to them in the perusal or criticism of that work which has "fixed the admiration of all competent judges." We are glad to find that in this serial the "Analogy "is to be made a topic of study. "The mind of a master pervades it. The author chose a theme infinitely important, and he has treated it with a skill, a force, a novelty and talent which have left little for others to do after him. He opened the mine, and exhausted it himself. A discretion which never oversteps the line of prudence is, in him, united with a penetration which nothing can escape. There are in his writings a vastness of idea, a reach and generalization of reasoning, a native simplicity and grandeur of thought, which command and fill the mind.": The seeds of thought abound in the book, and the logic on which it rests is as sure as the law which "guides the planets in their

[merged small][ocr errors]

* Rev. D. Wilson's Introductory Essay prefixed to Butler's London, 1827.

S. N.

"Analogy,"

Religion.

CAN MEMBERS OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES CONSISTENTLY TAKE PART IN THE SHAKSPERE TERCENTENARY MOVEMENT?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-II.

It

WITHIN the last half-century civilization has almost worked miracles. It has softened the heart of man, and opened it to a keener realization of the many pleasures of social life. has been the means of raising men wallowing in ignorance, and heirs of the endless crimes and miseries of which ignorance is the source, to an intellectual greatness which enables them to behold and enjoy that vast scene of historic truth which opens to view in the works of modern and ancient authors. To civilization it is that we are chiefly indebted for the superior refinement and moral tone which pervades human thoughts and acts, from the glittering scenes of courts to the low occupation of labourers. The effects of civilization are always healthy. But there often springs up in the breast of men a morbid, over-sensitive feeling of refinement that can have no endurance, for it is violated by the ordinary conversation and transactions of daily life. This pure refinement some are too apt to consider as a result of civilization, whereas it is a result of a morbid mind that would outrun civilization itself. We cannot but think that those who hold it to be inconsistent with the character of members of Christian churches to take part in the Shakspere tercentenary are under the influence of this feeling, or of others equally morbid and erroneous. It seems to us that by withholding their countenance from this movement they add nothing to the cause either of civilization or religion.

The question admits of no compromise. It either is, or is not, consistent for members of Christian churches to take part in this movement. We will examine the reasons that appear to us to be those which writers on the opposite side may urge in defence of their opinion. They are:-First, that Shakspere was a tragedian, and that by sanctioning a co-operation in this movement they will be sanctioning the reading and study of the drama, and at the same time encouraging an attendance at theatres and similar places of amusement. And, second, that the works of Shakspere, though they are faithful delineations of human character and feelings, are interspersed here and there with licentious words and phrases, that render the reading or representation of them dangerous to morals, especially to those of the young. It was, and still is, to a great

extent, the custom to consider theatres nothing less than seminaries of vice. Two centuries ago they were so, but in the present agean age of refinement, and one that is disgusted with whatever is immodest and licentious-theatres do not deserve the odium and reproach of vices the cause and consequences of which are no longer retained within their walls. The theatre of the present day is as different from that of the reign of Charles II., as are the people that frequent it now from those that used to crowd within its tainted walls in that time of reaction from the puritanical caricature of virtue to the boundless licence of wit and immorality. An occasional visit to theatres is, in our opinion, to be advised, and the person who embraces such opportunities of improvement is to be commended. For surely much can be learnt from a representation of characters, and the effects which such characters produce and entail on the possessor. Plays generally have morals, and that those morals are good it only remains for us to read and learn. In one, deceit is shown up to ridicule, and all the consequences which it entails on the practisers are exhibited and enlarged upon to the audience, to some of whom, doubtless, the moral of the play will occur at a season when other reasons would fail to induce them to forego that base means to an end. In another, the misery and evils of covetousness are exhibited, and many learn compassion from it, and find that a liberal man possesses a pleasure experienced only by himself. These are some of the advantages which theatres hold out to us. But there are many others, such as the insight which one acquires into the character of man, and an elevation of soul which a contemplation even of such specimens of art as the costumes of the actors and the scenes-which form, as it were, frames to these miniatures of real life-afford. We have frequently heard visitors to such places affirm, and our own experience goes to prove the assertion, that the representation of a good standard play has a beneficial effect on them, even in a moral way, by softening their hearts to the miseries and wants of others, and by elevating their thoughts to objects more of a spiritual nature than were those which previously occupied their attention. The tradition that theatres are sties of vice, we can well imagine has been handed down from the time when they really were nothing less; and people, especially as they are taught to believe so in their cradle, are apt to accept the tradition, and to refrain from frequenting such places; and hence are owing, in no little measure, their animosity to the drama, and their belief that a participation in the Shakspere tercentenary meeting is inconsistent with the practice of true church men. The other reason which we have given, as being probably one that writers on the opposite side will adduce in support of their opinion, is that the writings of our great dramatist contain licentious words and paragraphs, and that by joining in this meeting they would be doing nothing less than advising and publishing, in a way, these immoral parts to the rest of the world. Suppose that we grant that this celebration will have the effect of inducing people to read

and study the works of Shakspere more, it now remains to be shown that such study is wrong, and ruinous to the morals. The opposite opinion to this, we think, can be easily proved. We trust to show that not only is the study of Shakspere not to be prohibited, but that works of far more impure tone should be, and are, studied by the young, and recommended by those who have the formation of the characters of half of England's population. Surely it will be acknowledged by all, that any work or class of works which has exercised a great influence on the human mind, and which illustrates the characters of an important epoch in letters, politics, and morals, should be the study of the old, and certainly would not be out of place were it to form a lesson-book for the young. If we err in our opinion, we err with the greatest men and the greatest bodies of men in the kingdom, and especially with the Church of England, and with the eminent educational institutions connected with her. The whole liberal education of our countrymen is conducted on the principle that any book which is excellent, either by reason of its style, or by reason of the light which it throws on the history, polity, and manners of nations, shall not be withheld from the student on account of its impurity. The Greek plays, which scarcely contain a hundred lines without passages with which all the licentious parts of Shakspere would bear no comparison, have been printed and reprinted at the Pitt press and the Clarendon press, under the direction of syndics and delegates appointed by the universities, and havebeen illustrated with notes by reverend, very reverend, and right reverend commentators. Every year several hundreds of young men are examined by bishops and doctors of divinity, in books by the side of which the worst portions of Shakspere would be modest. And why are such books appointed for the study of young men ? our opponents may ask. We answer, Because the study of the classics enlarges and enriches the mind above the study of everything else; and that young men whose minds are so enlarged and enriched will be more likely to benefit the State and the Church than men who are unskilled, or little skilled, in classical literature. On the other hand, we are not inclined to believe that, in a world so full of temptation as this, any gentleman, whose life would have been virtuous but for the reading of such authors as Aristophanes and Juvenal, would be made vicious by reading them. A man exposed to the influence of such a state as ours, and who is yet afraid of exposing himself to the influence of a Greek or Latin author, may be aptly compared to the prisoner who begged the loan of an umbrella on his way to the gallows, because it was raining, and he was apt to take cold.

The virtue we want in the world is a healthful virtue, not a valetudinarian virtue,-a virtue that can expose itself to the risks inseparable from all spirited exertion, and not a virtue that is afraid to expose itself in the common air for fear of infection, and eschews the common good as too stimulating. It would be absurd to prevent men from acquiring those qualifications which enable

them to perform their part in life with honour to themselves and advantage to their country, for the sake of preserving a delicacy which cannot be preserved, a delicacy which a walk in any street of our towns is sufficient to destroy.

If it be, as the heads of our Church and universities think, desirable that a gentleman should be well informed about the government and the manners of little commonwealths, which both in place and time are far removed from us, whose independence has been more than two thousand years extinguished, whose languages have not been spoken for ages, and whose splendour is attested by a few broken columns and friezes only, much more desirable is it that he should be intimately acquainted with the history of the public mind of his own country, and with the causes, the nature, and the extent of those revolutions of opinion and feeling which, during the last two centuries, have alternately raised and depressed the standard of our national morality. And this knowledge can be but sparingly acquired by the study of other than light literature and the dramatists.

If it is of the coarseness of expression in which Shakspere occasionally indulges, that our opponents complain, we can find excuse for him in the age in which he wrote. The terms which one age considers as delicate, the next cries out against as gross. The diction of Shakspere is sometimes such as Addison would not venture to have imitated; and Addison, the standard of moral purity in his own age, used many phrases which are now proscribed. Whether a name shall be designated by a plain noun substantive, or by a circumlocution, is mere fashion; morality is not at all interested in the question. But morality is concerned in this, that what is immoral shall not be presented to the imagination of the young and susceptible in constant connection with what is attractive; for we all know that whatever is constantly presented to the imagination in connection with what is attractive, will itself become attractive. We acknowledge that there is a great deal of indelicate writing in Shakspere's plays;-so there is in the English version of the Bible. If this is sufficient to prohibit a student of the former, are we to be inconsistent, and say that it must not that of the latter? But while we acknowledge this deep blot on the pages of our great dramatist, we assert, with Macaulay, that it is impossible to trace in his works any systematic attempt to associate vice with those things which men value most and desire most, and virtue with anything ridiculous and degrading. The only reason, therefore, that can be brought against the reading of Shakspere is that it contains licentious words and phrases,- -a reason that can be brought against many of the works of the most eminent authors, both ancient and modern; a reason, too, that might with equal consistency be alleged against the reading of the Pentateuch itself, and one that we trust our arguments will show should have no influence in regulating our studies.

We will devote the rest of our article to the consideration of the 1864.

H

« PreviousContinue »