Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

8

Specimens of the Famouse Historie of Petronius Maximus. [July

From thy smoothe wordes-Awaye, if he must die,

I dare die with him.

Max.

Dare confide in me,

Etius shall not die-I come to save

His life, or lose my owne-which I doe holde

Most cheape, and valuelesse in such a cause.

Eud. If thou beʼest honeste-if thou wouldst preserve him,
Flie ere he enter these accursed walles,

To meete and warne him hence, or bid him come

Girt with his legions, to confound and crushe

The traitors and their plottes.

Max.
It may not be.
I cannot scape the creatures of Heraclius,
Who (fearfulle that my warie vigilance

Hathe pierced their darke intrigues) with gilty care
Stille dogge me at the heeles. There is but one-
One only way-if you dare-

Eud. Speake, I dare heare-Ætius' noble bloude
Flows in this breaste, and bids me spurne at feare.
Max. Cæsar must bleede.
Eud.

Max.

My husbande!

Your brother's murderer

Eud.

No, your tyrante

Yet still my husbande

He muste be spared.

Max.

If he outlive this houre,

Your brother's deathe and youre owne banishmente
Will be the price of your oppressor's safetie.
If Cæsar falls, his complots perish withe him,

[blocks in formation]

Max. Give but the worde, and this good sworde shall reach him, E'en in his guilty pleasures, and avenge

Your wronges-the wronges of Rome and human kinde.

These extracts will sufficiently show the style of this "Famouse Historie." It is more declamatory than the generality of the plays of that period, and rather resembles the pompous poverty of the French school, than the careless richness of the Shakespearian Drama. This marked difference I consider as lending additional interest to the piece, and as warranting a conjecture that the author held no communion with his brother writers, or with the spirit of their works. There is something dry and meagre in his dialogue, while the generality of the Elizabethan poets pour out their bright imaginings with wasteful"

and sometimes "ridiculous excess.' To that golden age of English poesy,

the public attention cannot be too repeatedly and too fondly directed. Among the labourers in the rich mine of old English literature, the Retrospective Reviewers deserve especial and honourable mention. Uniting the dissimilar characters of the bibliographer and the man of taste, they have produced a work in which the utile is delightfully mingled with the dulce. The literary world, I believe, has very generally observed and appreciated the merits of this literary Journal, and I feel much gratified in adding

My mite Of praise, in payment of a long delight.”

T.

[Our readers will find a very interesting account of the rise, exploits, and death of Etius, in Vol. VI. p. 9-116, 8vo edition, of Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

EDITOR.]

VIEW OF THE ELEMENTARY PRINCI-
PLES OF EDUCATION, FOUNDED ON
THE STUDY OF THE NATURE OF
MAN.

EDUCATION was the primary object of the great lawgivers of antiquity. What, for example, were the codes of Boodh, of Brahma, of Moses, of Lyeurgus, of Solon, and even of Mohammed, but so many systems of moral, civil, political, and religious institution? The natural effect of such systems of extensive and minute regulation, was to form a distinctive and peculiar character, a result which seems to have been contemplated by the renowned lawgivers already mentioned, as the ne plus ultra of legis latorial perfection. Their means were admirably calculated to the end proposed; for, to this day, the Chinese, the Hindoos, and the Jews, remain nearly in the same condition as 3000 years ago; and there cannot, we think, be a doubt, that, had the laws of Lycurgus derived more aid from superstition, and been somewhat more detailed and specific in their operation, they would have possessed a similar exemption from change. National character is only unvarying in countries wherein religion identifies itself with the daily business, intercourse, and affairs of life, no less than with the administration of justice, and the laws that regulate property. In countries of this description, the legislator devises the most minute, no less than the most comprehensive regulations, and prescribes, with equal authority, the manner of cooking rice, or making ablutions in the Ganges, and the great rules of civil and political union. The laws, consequently, are only a system of education reduced into practice. Of this the oriental nations just mentioned are examples. In the republics of ancient Greece, too, this legislative peculiarity is apparent. Montesquieu has shown, that Virtue is the principle of a Democracy. It was, therefore, necessary to form the minds of the citizens according to the standard of virtue then received; to cherish in their breasts a predominating love of glory and their country; to inspire a contempt for riches, luxury, danger,

By J. G. Spurzheim, M. D. Edin. burgh, Constable and Co. 1821. VOL. IX.

and death; and to prompt to the cultivation of the severer virtues of magnanimity, fortitude, and self-denial. Hence the codes of Lycurgus and Solon were little more than extended and comprehensive systems of Public Instruction.

But as society advanced in the acquisition of political knowledge, and as great bodies of men conglomerated into one system of political and civil union, such all-grasping schemes of equalization were found at once incompatible with liberty, and with the progress of the human mind in knowledge and civilization. Legislators have, accordingly, in modern times, confined themselves, in a great measure, to their own province, and, satisfied with providing for the safety of the state, and the security of individual life and property, have left the great business of education to those individuals who are able to appreciate, and desirous to appropriate its blessings.

Every system of education, considered strictly as such, resolves itself three parts, Physical, Intellectual, and Moral. The first, which rather belongs to the science of Pathology, treats of those means by which the organs of Sensation and Perception, and the muscular and nervous system, may be preserved in a sound and healthy condition, and improved in vigour and activity. The second comprehends the processes fit to be pursued for the cultivation of those mental powers, which are generally classed under the head of the Under standing. And the third refers to an examination of all those means, positive and negative, prohibitory and remunerative, by which the affections may be cultivated and directed.

Öf all modern writers on education, with whose works we are acquainted, from those of Milton and Locke downwards, we know of none who has rigidly followed the order of investigation here stated, except the author before us, and the Rev. Dr L. Carpenter, in his ingenious article on Education, first written for Dr Rees's Cyclopædia, and afterwards published in a separate volume. The "Tractate" of the author of Paradise Lost, is a mere collection of undigested and anarranged precepts, expressed in powerful and highly figurative, but inverted, and often obscure, phraseo

B

logy. Locke displays vast compass and originality of thought, and, were his Treatise better arranged, and more practical, it would leave nothing alinost to be added on this subject; but he does not sufficiently distinguish between the different parts of the subject; there is too great a spirit of accommodation to the genius of his own metaphysical speculations; and his book is rather a manual of philosophical, than of practical education. Of Dr Priestley's speculations, the best thing perhaps that can be said is, that they were intended to be useful. His Observations on Religious Education are certainly good, so far as they are general, and do not smell of his particular tenets in Christianity; but in his Miscellaneous Observations on Education, we discover an irreverence for past experience, a contempt, habitually expressed, for established systems, a tendency to experiment and innovation, and an arrogant hostility to those who have had the hardihood to dissent from his conclusions, which, while they are sufficiently characteristic of the author, must greatly lessen the weight of his authority on the present subject. But Dr Priestley's errors in politics, metaphysics, and religion, have been so loudly proclaimed, and so frequently exposed, that they have long ago ceased to be dangerous. To many able female writers on Education, the public are, also, under obligations. Among these, Mrs Hamilton is, by general consent, entitled to the first place. To her belongs the undivided praise of rendering easy and attractive, to the studious and the docile of her own sex, the more subtle and profound doctrines of Mental Philosophy. She thinks closely, and expresses herself with precision and perspicuity. On the other hand, in all that concerns the regulation of the heart and the temper, Mrs More stands unrivalled; and, on the subject of moral education, her works will always furnish many valuable and original suggestions. Nor, in this rapid enumeration, are the labours of Miss Edgeworth to pass unchronicled: both in Professional and Practical Education she displays her peculiar talent for observation, and an intimate and profound acquaintance with the springs of human actions. But this is the utmost length that we can go. We cannot cause ourselves to

forget the family in which Miss Edgeworth saw exemplified the maxims she records, and, with all deference for her judgment and taste, we cannot but regret that, in her system of institution, Christianity has found no place. In our opinion, to attempt to rouse the latent sparks of intellectual ambition, or to model or renovate the juvenile heart, without calling in the aid of revelation as a constant auxiliary, in the reformatory process, appears to be like building on the sand, and to exclude from the mind the highest influence, the most energetic and salutary agency, and the hallowed and inspiring efficacy of the purest and most refined feelings. We have no intention to be unnecessarily severe. Yet a female, probably herself without religious impressions, and attempting to set up a system of moral perfectability independently of the gospel, and on the assumed principle, that the human mind involves in itself a self-rectifying and reforming power, which only requires to be adroitly developed in order to accomplish the objects of education, appears to us to be an object of real pity, and to furnish a humiliating instance how far the highest intellects may sometimes be deluded and "spoiled through vain philosophy." But it is more than time to proceed to give some account of the volume before us.

The present book contains a system of education founded upon what has been, somewhat rashly, called " THE NEW PHILOSOPHY." It contains a great number of valuable, not to say original, remarks, chiefly, as might have been expected, of a physiological character. Dr Spurzheim contemplates man rather as an anatomist than a philosopher: and, accordingly, as far as physical education is concerned, we know of no book equally accessible, in the English language, in which the same number of important truths are collected, or which appears to have been composed under the influence of better moral and religious feelings. Differing, as we do toto cœlo, from the Phrenologists, we should consider ourselves guilty of an act of most unpardonable injustice were we not to bear the most ample testimony to the merits of the unpretending volume before us. Though professedly founded upon, and intended as an exemplification of a particular system, it is happily adapted to the taste of

the general reader, and contains so great a mass of undisputed truths felicitously aggregated, that we are deceived if it do not very greatly extend the reputation of the author, and, probably, the knowledge of his system. Nor is the wonderful correctness with which the book is writ ten, considering the almost insuperable difficulties that lie in the way of a writer, composing in a foreign language, one of the least remarkable things about the present volume. A few Scotticisms interspersed cannot be supposed to have materially qualified this opinion, especially as they reminded us of the author's connection with our country, where, however we may differ as to the Physiognomical System, but one opinion was ever entertained as to his professional learning, and the unobtrusive, yet earnest zeal, with which he sought to promulgate every truth which he behered likely to prove beneficial to man

kind.

The limits of this Journal do not permit us to enter systematically into this able treatise. We shall, therefore, confine our notice to a few desultory remarks on such parts of the author's performance as appear to us to be deserving of emendation or censure. At the same time, we hope that the more fastidious class of our readers will not allow their delicacy to be too much shocked by encountering, at the very outset, a chapter on the Laws of Propagation. Though, perhaps, not the most valuable in the work, we can assure them that it is very chastely written, and that, however it may shock a maiden who has passed her grand climacteric, it contains truths which it will be good for the world generally to know. On the second chapter, which treats of the Vital Functions, and the third, which lays down the Laws of Exercise, we would be understood to bestow our most unqualified approbation. With regard to the last, On the Mutual Influence of the Powers, which will doubtless be regarded, by the Phrenologists, as the best and ablest in the work, and which developes the author's peculiar opinious on the subjects of Moral and Intellectual Education, though it displays unquestionable talent, we must candidly confess that it appears to us peculiarly assailable.

"Education," says Dr Spurzheim, "ought to be founded on a knowledge of man." It "ought" unquestionably, provided the doctor does not beg the question, and assume that that knowledge can only be acquired by the study of Phrenology, to the exclusion of the experience, consciousness, and belief of all ages. The very essence of the question at issue between Dr Spurzheim and his opponents is, In what manner are we to attain to such a certain "knowledge of man" as to enable us to build on it as a foundation for a system of general education? Again, "The aim in educating all must be the same, namely, to render them virtuous and intelligent." While we admit this to be a correct description of the object of moral and intellectual tuition, we must enter our caveat against the unqualified form in which the doctor has enunciated the proposition which follows it, namely, "That all persons are not capable of the same improvement, and that every one cannot be induced by the same motives to pursue the same end." Now this appears to us to be partly true and partly false. If we hence infer with Dr Spurzheim, that there are no general laws applicable to education, and that a different course must be pursued in the instruction of every individual, we apprehend the conclusion will be singularly erroneous. By coming to such a conclusion, we shall not only virtually hold that education is in a different predicament from every other subject of human investigation, where knowledge consists solely in the discovery of general laws, but we shall, at the same time, deprive ourselves of all power of extending the blessings of instruction by means of scientific. combinations and arrangements. If, however, it be only asserted that all who have enjoyed the same advantages do not equally improve in knowledge, no mortal will contest the truism: if, on the contrary, it be maintained that all are not, generally speaking, possessed of the same facul ties, we hold the allegation to be substantially false. We would lay it down as a general principle, that all men, whose organization is not defective, are endowed with the same faculties, though by no means to the same extent. Every man must possess a certain degree of the faculties

[ocr errors]

of attention, abstraction, imagination, judgment, reasoning: only some are gifted with these powers in a high and pre-eminent degree. The writer of this is no mathematician, yet he possesses as complete a conviction that the three angles of a plane triangle are equal to two right angles, as either Professor Leslie or Professor Wallace. Wherein, then, does his knowledge differ from theirs? In degree certainly, not in kind. All soils may produce the same grain, but it will most assuredly differ, both in quantity and quality: it is still, however, generically the same. There is an immense distance between William Shakespeare, and James Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd, or drunken Dermody, the Bacchanalian rhymster; but, with due submission, we crave liberty to hold, that, in all the three, the elemental principles of human nature were substantially the same. Hence, it is not true that every one cannot be induced by the same motives to pursue the same end." It is difficult to conceive two human beings exposed to the influence of precisely the same motives. Yet, assuming the thing as possible, we aver that the same motives, when presented in the same circumstances, will, cæteris paribus, produce similar results. Upon this principle, all our reasonings, as to the conduct of certain agents, placed in certain conditions, and all our knowledge derived from past experience, entirely rest. And do we not find, as a matter of absolute fact, that in all historical and philosophical disquisitions in which the motives of men have been most carefully weighed and most scrupulously appreciated, the inferences drawn relative to the future conduct of men, placed under the influence of the same motives, are substantially accurate? Upon what other grounds than this have great men, at different times, ventured to predict the consequences of certain events only in progress of accomplishment during their own lives? A given motive may not produce a given effect to the same degree, in the case of different individuals, placed in nearly similar circumstances, but it will pro duce that effect in some degree; which is all that we contend for, and which, if true, overturns one of the fundamental propositions of Dr Spurzheim's able Treatise-a proposition which strikes at the root of

all the investigations of Mental Philosophy, the great aim and purpose of which we take to be, to discover and enforce general rules for regulating the education of human beings. In fact, this theory of Dr Spurzheim reminds us of what Adam Smith has said of the theories of metaphysicians in general. As they write of the human mind, the subject of our consciousness, they must tell us so much of the truth, however they may puzzle and confound us at the long run; just as a man who presents us with a history of our native parish will be laughed at and discredited, unless he be accurate in at least the outline of his work.

"Nature, by her endowments,” says Dr Spurzheim, "constitutes some characters moral, and others religious.” This is Fatalism with a vengeance. But the Doctor is not consistent; for, towards the end of his work, he most distinctly and correctly avers, that, "whenever moral liberty is wanting, there is no guilt." Leaving the Doctor to reconcile these conflicting allegations as he best may, we think there can be no doubt that the most formidable objection with which the Phrenologists have had to struggle consists in the alleged necessary tendency of their system to an absolute Fatalism. That they have overcome this objection, notwithstanding their strenuous efforts for that purpose, we are certainly not prepared to admit, though we hope we shall ever be among the foremost in applauding the ingenuity and perseverance with which this difficult task has been prosecuted. Ifevery faculty of the mind acts through the medium of a separate organ, the doctrine of necessity is, we apprehend, involved in the very fundamental proposition of the system. If we open our eyes, we must see; if we listen, we must hear; if the moral organ be

[ocr errors]

CONSTITUTED" powerful, we must feel a love of virtue and a hatred of vice; and if weak, we will be conscious of these sentiments in a lesser degree. To take the last instance, the "constitution” of the moral organ must precede the virtuous sentiment; and where the organ does not exist at all, there can be no moral sense, no knowledge of right and wrong, no responsibility for a course of conduct pursued. The moral sentiment, therefore, being the result of organization, must be independent of the volition

« AnteriorContinuar »