his religious feelings, he does not always reason in straight lines, he still never consciously substitutes antipathies for arguments, or investigates for any other purpose than to reach the truth. His "Lectures on Modern History" are good examples of the moral honesty of his character. Though replete with bold generalisations, and often grouping long periods of history under one idea, they still exhibit all that cautious qual ification of general principles by individual exceptions, which a conscientious induction of facts produces. The book contains much just and weighty thought and important information. Few students of history are so well read in the subject, as to rise from its perusal without having received additional knowledge. The general remarks on the right mode to study his tory, and the insight given into the philosophy of modern history, are especially valuable. The style is plain, energetic and business-like. The clearness and directness of the expression come from the orderly arrangement of the author's ideas, and the due subordination in his mind of the greater to the less. The diction of every lecture shows that it was thought out before it was written out. There is no parade of learning, or illustration or ornament; but rather a disposition evinced to cram the thoughts into as small a space as the proprieties of spoken composition will admit. In his Inaugural Lecture, Dr. Arnold introduces the whole subject with some general statements and speculations. He defines history as the biography of a society or nation, being to the common life of many what biography is to the life of the individual. Theoretically this common life finds its expression in those who are invested with a State's government; "for here we have the varied elements which exist in the body of the nation, reduced as it were to an intelligible unity; the State appears to have a personal existence in the government." Governments being thus the representatives of nations, it would seem that when they are lodged in the hands of individuals, biography and history would melt into each other, as one person combines in himself his life as an individual, and the common life of his nation. Historians have accordingly thought they were recording the life of a common wealth, when they were recording the actions and fortunes of its monarchs; but as governments, practically, have less represented the State than themselves, as the individual life has predominated in them over the common life, history has thus often become merely biography, as it "does but record the passions and actions of an individual, who is abusing the State's name for the purpose of selfish rather than public good." The life of a commonwealth is partly external and partly internal; the former expressed in its dealings with other commonwealths, and the latter in its dealings with itself. The external life of a nation being chiefly displayed in its wars, the government is always here, to a certain degree, ative; for here there is something of a community of interest and feeling, the glory or shame of a war affecting the interests or passions of the whole nation, and the government being compelled to act and suffer, to a considerable degree, for and with the body of the people. History, in recording wars, has remained true to one portion of its proper object; and in this it has been sufficiently busy; for "the wars of the human race have been recorded where the memory of everything else has perished." This is natural, for the external life of nations, as of individuals, is more easily known, and more generally interesting, than its internal life. The effects of action, being visible and sensible, are universally intelligible; and the qualities displayed in it we instinctively admire. The descriptions of battles, either in history or poetry, Dr. Arnold contends, are attractive, not because they feed any fondness for scenes of horror and blood, but because they give play to our sympathies with the great qualities displayed in them, such as ability in the adaptation of means to ends, courage, endurance, perseverance. the complete conquest over some of the most universal weaknesses of our nature, the victory over some of its most powerful temptations; and he is inclined to think that a person who can read these descriptions without interest, differs from the mass of mankind rather for the worse than the better; "he rather wants some noble qualities which other men have, than possesses some which other men want." This we deem to be an incorrect statement of the case. Wherever great powers of intellect or asked, before we can answer whether Passing from history in the abstract, the words "half-civilised" and "ci virtues are displayed in war, the advocate of peace may consistently admire them, while he is shocked at their direction. He yields to none in admiration of the qualities, but he desires to see them exercised for beneficial, instead of destructive purposes. He would disconnect essentially noble instincts from their accidental union with bad passions. He feels that "under the sky is no uglier spectacle than that of two men, with clenched hands and hell-fire eyes, hacking each other's flesh; converting precious human bodies and priceless human souls into mere masses of putrescence, fit only for turnip manure." He is also inclined to echo an old piece of quaint wisdom, "that he who preaches war is the Devil's chaplain;" for he knows that good men have often been led into unjust wars from being blinded to their essential folly and wickedness; by thinking merely of their occasional influence in developing great and noble qualities. And he is indisposed to abate his disgust at annals black with rapine, lust and murder, because Napoleon displayed incomparable skill at Austerlitz, because Sir Philip Sidney displayed the most touching humanity at Zutphen. The inward life of a nation next engages Dr. Arnold's attention. This he considers the most important, and from this he deems its outward life also is characterised. The history of a nation's inward life is the history of its institutions and laws; by institutions, meaning "such offices, orders of men, public bodies, settlements of property, customs or regulations concerning matters of general usage, as do not owe their existence to any express law or laws, but having originated in various ways at a period of remote antiquity, are already parts of the national system, at the very beginning of our historical view of it, and are recognised by all actual laws, as being themselves a kind of primary condition on which all recorded legislation proceeds." The term laws is confined to "the enactments of a known legislative power, at a certain known period." The inward life of a nation is rightly to be subjected to the same tests as are applied to the life of the individual, and is determined by the nature of its ultimate end. "What is a nation's main object, is, therefore, a question which must be its inner life, and consequently its outward life also, which depends upon the inner life, is to be called good or evil." If the main object be power, or even national existence, it is not the true object, for neither is an ultimate end, but is to be tested by its being employed for worthy purposes. If a nation has any other object than that which is the highest object of every individual in it, then the attribute of sovereignty, inseparable from nationality, becomes the dominion of an evil principle. If its highest object be wealth, dominion or security, and as a nation it is not cognizant of the notions of justice and humanity, or deliberately prefers other objects to them, then its sovereign power in human life, by which it can influence the minds and command the actions of moral beings, is immoral and evil. The ultimate end of government, therefore, should be moral, not physical; the promoting and securing the nation's highest happiness, not the protection of their persons and property; in short, "the setting forth of God's glory by doing his appointed work." In this view, Church and State are not so much united as identical, the highest object of the government being made to consist in the diffusion of moral and religious truth, so as to promote corresponding virtuous and religious action among the governed; that being their highest happiness. Of course, in the institutions and laws of such a nation, religion would have the most prominent place. As the government would be sovereign, and as its primary end would be religious, its power would be exerted first of all in disseminating the religion of the government; and it would be idle to say that it would not command the obedience of the reason to speculative opinions, as well as the obedience of the will to moral laws. It would at least place those who dissented in matters of faith on a different footing from those who assented. Dr. Arnold's theory of the State, however, has ieference chiefly to English controversies on the subject. The opinion on this side of the Atlantic, we trust, is, that the less the government has to do with the Church, the better for both. It is curious, however, that Dr. Arnold's theory convicts the English government of "being the dominion of an evil prineiple." Dr. Arnold proceeds to consider modern history, the essential character of which he conceives to be, that it treats of national life still in existence-that it commences at a period when all the great elements of the existing state of things had met together. The great elements of nationality are race, language, institutions and religion; "and it will be seen that throughout Europe all these four may be traced up, if not actually in every case to the fall of the western empire, yet to the dark period which followed that fall, while in no case are all four to be found united before it." It is contended that modern history records no addition to the elements of this national personality, all the changes which have occurred having merely combined or disposed these elements differently. The interest of modern history is supreme, treating, as it does, of a national existence not yet extinct, "and exhibiting a fuller development of the human race, a richer combination of its remarkable elements." The moral and mental influence of the ancient world is continued in our modern life, with the addition of a new element, the English or German race. Dr. Arnold considers that the period of history he calls modern will never become ancient; that the national life now in existence will be immortal; that we are representing the first acts of a drama of which the catastrophe is in an unknown future. vilised." usually employed to signify the distinction, he classes the historians according as their works relate to simple or complicated state of things. The active elements of society in the early and middle ages are few-kings, popes, bishops, lords and knights being almost the only objects of attention; while, since the sixteenth century, new classes or bodies of men have been introduced into the active elements of society, and produced wide varieties of opinions and interests. The criticism in this lecture of Bede and Philip de Comines, the discussions of the claims of the historians of the early ages to our belief, and the consideration of the papacy, in the thirteenth century, are very interesting and candid. In the third lecture, the importance of geography to a full comprehension of history is insisted upon at some length. Dr. Arnold then considers the proposition that the undoubted tendency of the last three centuries has been to consolidate what were once separate states "kingdoms into one great nation." This he illustrates in the cases of the Spanish Peninsula, France, Great Britain, Austria and Italy. The "successive excesses of the tendency towards consolidation, and the resistance offered to them, afford some of the most convenient divisions for the external history of modern Europe." The first of these which Dr. Arnold considers, is the Austro-Spanish power held by Charles V.-the mass of whose dominions seemed such as to put him in the way of acquiring universal power. was opposed by France principally, and after various tides of fortune, was dissolved by the abdication of Charles, and the division of his empire. The power of Spain, however, under his son Philip the Second again caused alarm, and was resisted and dissolved. The house of Austria, after the conquest of the Palatinate, in 1622, next excited apprehension, and was opposed by France, under Richelieu, and by Sweden, Holland, and the Protestant States of Germany. The resisting power again triumphed. France, unpoleon, again arrived at universal dominion, and in both instances was eventually defeated. This We have devoted so much space to the Inaugural Lecture, that we shall not be able to treat the others at all in detail. The first lecture of the course contains some admirable remarks on the true method to study modern history, so as to comprehend the external and internal life of the nations to which if refers. He advises the student to fix upon some period, to read the contemporary historians of the time, and then to examine the treaties, laws, art, literature, private letters, &c., of the period, so as to get at a full and distinct impression of its events, characters, institutions, manners and ways of thinking. This knowledge of the past must also be combined with a lively and extensive der Louis the Fourteenth and Napo knowledge of the present, or it is mere antiquarianism. In the second lecture, Dr. Arnold divides modern history into two periods, one before, the other after the sixteenth century; and waiving These different contests involved to some degree political and religious principles; but what we have most to consider in them are economical and military questions, the purse and the sword deciding their issue. Dr. Arnold devotes some pages to the expense of war, and the burdens it lays upon a nation, discussing incidentally the question of the right of one generation to tax another, by carrying on its contests through the medium of loans. He instances the wars of the last century, and the first fifteen years of the present, in which Great Britain contracted a debt of £700,000,000, to pay the interest of which more than half of her present revenue is appropriated. Though he does not absolutely object to this mode of making posterity pay part of the expenses of war, he thinks that it has been carried beyond all bounds of prudence and justice heretofore. The fourth lecture treats of the laws of war and military operations. The humanity of the author is well exemplified in this portion of his book. The fifth and sixth lectures relate to internal history, principally of that of England, in which a fine analysis is given of its two great parties, the popular and the anti-popular, from the age of Elizabeth down to the Revolution of 1688. The strange mixture of political, per sonal and religious considerations which this period of English history exhibits, the United States an opposite theory is a common truism. It is a fact when governments have assumed their ultimate end to be moral, morality as well as life and property have equally suffered. It is a fact, that the connection of religion with political power, has had no good influence in making states or subjects moral or religious. It is a fact that the subordination of physical to religious ends, in the action of states, has produced moral evil by the physical suffering it has created. However much we respect Dr. Arnold's character, and his opinions as an exponent of his character, we think that in this case zeal vitiated his judgment, and that he overlooked the great practical truth, which has been expressed with so much eloquence by a prominent English liberal statesman, that "the whole history of the Christian religion shows, that she is in far greater danger of being corrupted by the alliance of power, than of being crushed by its opposition. Those who thrust temporal sovereignty upon her, treat her as their prototypes treated her author. They bow the knee, and spit upon her; they cry hail! and smite her on the cheek; they put a sceptre into her hand, but it is a fragile reed; they crown her, but it is with thorns; they cover with purple the wounds which their own hands have inflicted on her; is rendered clearer to the apprehension and inscribe magnificent titles over of the common student than in any the cross on which they have fixed other work we have seen. The se- her to perish in ignominy and pain." venth lecture treats of England since the Revolution, and is full of valuable We publish the foregoing article, thought and information. The last lecture is devoted to a discussion of the credibility of history, and to a few other questions which the subject naturally suggests. The American edition of this work, is handsomely printed and carefully edited. Professor Reed's notes, which consist principally of further elucidations of Dr. Arnold's views by extracts from his other writings will be found quite interesting. We think that he might have made the notes more valuable by throwing in, here and there, a first, because of our high respect for the accomplished critic through whose kindness it has been presented to usand, secondly, for the useful synopsis it presents of the work to which it relates. There are some peculiarities in this volume of lectures, however, which our contributor has substantially overlooked, of too grave an import to receive the same treatment at our hands. Our ardent admiration for the gifted Professor whose death nearly the whole civilized world united in deploring, would probably have prevented our uttering criticism or argument of his own, when one discordant note to mar the harmony his author's principles clash with Ame- of such a universal sentiment, if we had rican ideas, as in the speculations on been personally compelled to entertain Church and State; but on this point original jurisdiction of the subject of we do not insist. Dr. Arnold's notions of the foregoing article. After what has a state are too theoretical to find a prac- been stated, however, in the preceding tical exemplification anywhere; and in pages, and to all of which we substarWhately and of Macauley, is a problem to honest men. Near the conclusion of the Inaugural Lecture, another proposition "with its darkness dares affront the light," scarcely less extraordinary than the one to which we have been glancing. We will quote it in its author's own language: tially subscribe, we feel it our duty to express an opinion or two about these lectures, which will not harmonize with the prevailing tone of published opinion upon the subject. In doing so, we should exceedingly regret being instrumental in depreciating any person's estimate of the moral and intellectual symmetry of Dr. Arnold's character, for which he was so justly distinguished during his life, and for which, more than anything else, in our judgment, his fame will be cherished. We propose to speak of him at present merely in his professional character-as an interpreter of history-and in viewing him in that capacity, we wish to point out what seem to us capital defects in future history beyond it. For the last the spirit and philosophy of some of these lectures. In the first place, the learned Doctor is an open, pertinacious and of course, though unconsciously, a sophistical advocate of a constitutional religion. He maintains that, as it is the business of government to secure the largest happiness of every individual under its control; and as every man's spiritual are his highest interests -most seriously involve his happiness therefore Government should see that he is properly preached to and prayed for, according to a form of faith which the legislators of the country should judge to be efficacious and should properly authenticate. "This leads us to a view of modern history, which cannot indeed be confithe mind with an imagination, if not with dently relied on, but which still impresses a conviction, of its reality. I mean, that modern history appears to be not only a step in advance of ancient history, but the last step; it appears to bear marks of the fulness of time, as if there would be no eighteen hundred years Greece has fed human intellect; Rome, taught by has been the source of law and governGreece, and improving upon her teacher, ment and social civilisation; and what neither Greece nor Rome could furnish, the perfection of moral and spiritual truth, has been given by Christianity. The changes which have been wrought have But races SO arisen out of the reception of these ele- own individual character is absorbed, and Now, it is unnecessary in this country to argue the absurdity of forcing the people to submit their spiritual education and direction to the caprices of political parties, or to the diversified judgments of five hundred members of Parliament. Any person having the remotest acquaintance with the true functions of government, would per- yet new, for a future period, we know not ceive at once that there is probably no where such are to be found. Some aporganization in the world more unfit, in pear exhausted, others incapable, and yet the first place, to determine disputed the surface of the whole globe is known points of religious faith than a legisla- to us. The Roman colonies along the ture, and none more incapable of propbanks of the Rhine and Danube looked agating those that are established than out on the country beyond those rivers as a political administration. In this counwe look up at the stars, and actually see try, not enough speak tolerantly with our eyes a world of which we know doctrine to give it respectability. nothing. The Romans knew that there how any doubt should remain, even in did not know; how vast it might be, was was a vast portion of earth which they England, upon the subject after the a part of its mysteries. But to us all is utterly overwhelming arguments of explored: imagination can hope for no of the But * What may be done hereafter by the Sclavonic nations, is not prejudged by this statement; because the Sclavonic nations are elements of our actual history, although their powers may be as yet only partially developed. |