erature, it may be, but giving no fresh impulse to modern feeling or wings to the eager imagination. I cannot believe that Mr. Arnold ever experienced what Wordsworth calls "poetic pains which only the poets know." The sedate measure of his lines, the uniformity of his moods, and the calm premeditation of his composition, while suggesting a certain strength, are lacking in that spontaneous touch which makes "music of thought, and music of language," as some one has said. It is a passion of the composite author to pray that if his name is to be enshrined in memory, it shall be through his poetic creation. I question whether Mr. Arnold entertained at the last a just appreciation of the real greatness of his critical faculty, which seems to have insured for him a lasting name, if we may judge of its value by the almost universal tributes paid it; but, without question, he had a serene faith that there was a quality in his poetry which would preserve it and him in the thought of men ; who would say nay that such a faith foreshadowed it be may a reality. In the mean time no student can afford to miss the training and tendency to which Mr. Arnold's work invites, in its entertainment of ideas, and no lover of that "sweetness and light" which he so admirably and persistently pointed to, in the intellectual and artistic realm, can turn away from his thought without absorbing something from his wealth of cultivation and his purity of aim which shall make life better worth the living. Stephen Henry Thayer. NEW YORK CITY. THE SABBATH IN RELATION TO CIVILIZATION. Is the Sabbath a factor in civilization? and to what extent? It would be a legitimate inference, from what has been said on the economic and moral aspects of the question, that the Sabbath is an efficient force in modern civilization, since whatever is promotive of individual well-being may be fairly supposed to be equally promotive of well-being in man's collective capacity. Without the Sabbath, ideal life would be an unattainable goal, the realization of perfect society an impossibility. No civilization can come to its highest and fullest fruition that does not give the Sabbath the place it is entitled to in the physical and moral constitution of man. Christian civilization differs from the civilizations of antiquity, not merely in degree but in character. Has the Sabbath been a force in producing this difference? and what has been its momentum? The Sabbath, both as an economic and religious institute, is essential to the material and moral well-being of man. Its institution at a time—even if it be admitted to be no older than the age of Moses when the physical necessities of man were not so well understood, and when his religious nature was less powerfully and intelligently emphasized in the thoughts and aims of rulers, is a demonstration of its divine origin and authority. For, to repeat the argument of Proudhon, no merely human foresight, no statesmanship, no philanthropy, could at that age have devised an arrangement which so perfectly meets the wants of man both in his physical and in his moral necessities. 1 It is justly insisted upon that the Sabbath is absolutely necessary for the efficient advancement of true religion. The success of Christianity, unless directed and sustained by supernatural agencies only, hinges upon this support. This was the view of a distinguished French statesman: "Without the Sabbath there can be no worship, without worship no religion." And it was the confession of Voltaire that Christianity could not be destroyed whilst the Sabbath remains. Its author might as well have published it into empty space, in the hope of morally revolutionizing man, as to send it forth into the world without the aid of the Sabbath. A day of rest, therefore, devoted to the immediate service of religion, is the first external requirement of Christianity. Now then, what was the relation of the Sabbath to civilization? Civilization may be defined as the progress which society makes in government, arts, science, education, religious life. What were the civilizations of antiquity? What, in all the more historic of these civilizations, was the overmastering element? Was it religion, education, or material grandeur? In Egypt, unquestionably, the material element was the crowning force. Her monuments, broken and fragmentary, lining the banks of the Nile in vast reaches, testify, after the tread of centuries, to the grandeur and extent of her material resources and progress. Her religion was conspicuous but not a supremely controlling element in her 1 Montalembert. life. Her real character is expressed in her vast monuments and territorial aggrandizement. The civilization of the Euphrates reveals the same fact. Its chief development was in the line of physical energy and achievement. The immense structures and temples of Assyria, though connected with religion, were monuments in commemoration of the warlike exploits of her kings. The scenes which her artists wrought in marble were either scenes of marches and battles, of sieges, of sacking of cities, of the treatment of prisoners; or were scenes of hunting, - the chase of the lion, the wild bull, the wild ass. The massive slabs lining her public halls were covered with minute descriptions of campaigns and conquests. Battlescenes and carnage obtrude themselves upon the antiquary wherever he uncovers the long-lost monuments of Mesopotamia. The Assyrians were skilled in the moulding of vases, jars, and drinking-cups, in the carving of ivory, in gem-engraving, glass blowing and coloring, so that in material civilization and art they did not fall very much behind the Greeks. However, "combined with this progress in luxury and refinement, and this high perfection of the principal arts that embellish and beautify life, their sculptures and their records reveal much which revolts and disgusts, savage punishments, brutalizing war customs, a debasing religion, a cruel treatment of prisoners, a contempt for women, a puerile and degrading superstitiousness; teaching the lesson, which the present age would do well to lay seriously to heart, that material progress, skill in manufactures and in arts, even refined taste and real artistic excellence, are no sure indications of that civilization which is alone of real value, the civilization of the heart, a condition involving not merely polished manners, but gentleness, tenderness, self-restraint, purity, elevation of mind and soul, devotion of the thoughts and life to better things than comfort or luxury, or the cultivation of the æsthetic faculties." 1 The same authority, speaking of Indian civilization, notes its chief characteristic: "Indian civilization is, in the main, intellectual, not material. . . . The Indians occupy themselves with the inward, not with the outward world." 2 ... The distinguishing feature of Greek civilization was its marked advancement in art and refined culture. These the Greeks carried to a perfection never surpassed, if indeed ever equalled in any age. Her artists, poets, orators, historians, are the admiration 1 Rawlinson, Origin of Nations, pp. 95, 96. and study of all times. And what was the ruling characteristic of Roman civilization, whose influence and power were extended upon a wider arena than that of all other civilizations combined? Rome, the only truly Universal Empire of the world, under whose sway" the distributive forces of nations gathered themselves into a mighty aggregate." Now what did these civilizations achieve to meet the deep spiritual requirements of man? What provision did they make for his moral and religious elevation? Directing attention only to the civilization of Rome, and what is the answer to these questions? Read the picture which St. Paul draws of society in Rome, not of the purlieus only of the Imperial City, but of her educated and governing classes, and is the picture not one of the most revolting and debasing that the human mind was ever asked to dwell upon? This, too, in the zenith of her intellectual splendor and imperial dominion, when, next to Athens, Rome was the most magnificent city in the world, in the superb richness and variety of her architectural display. What did her noble literature, what did her splendid art, what did her civic strength do, yea, what could they do, all combined into one immense momentum, to save her people from such a terrible moral doom? Rich beyond other civilizations in the amplitude of her resources, in her vast dominion over the world, in giving law to almost every part of the civilized globe, Rome was absolutely without power to lift man upon a higher moral and religious plane. Now it was out of the depth of such a civilization, deficient in a pure and elevating spiritual faith, that the moral monsters sprung, as by a natural birth, some of whom sat upon her imperial throne. Hardly any atrocity was enormous enough to abash even the most cultivated and eminent of her citizens. Without shock to public conscience, Nero imbrued his hands in the blood of his mother, and the senate, composed of the trained and educated minds of the state, decreed thanksgiving for the bloody crime. Caligula on one occasion, when two consuls were sitting with him at the imperial table, burst forth into sudden and profuse laughter, and, being courteously asked by his distinguished guests what witty and rare conceit might be the occasion of his royal mirth, frankly confessed that he was laughing at the pleasant thought of seeing both their throats cut without the slightest inconvenience to himself. At another time, laying his hand upon the polished throat of his wife, whom strangely enough he seems to have loved, he insinuates a doubt whether he should caress it, a pleasure which he might often repeat, or whether he should cut it, a gratification which could be experienced but once.1 Such diabolical exhibitions of moral debasement were not sporadic or extreme. They were of common occurrence, "the summit of a pyramid whose broad base was in the life of the nation."2 Rome was the common asylum which received and protected whatever was impure and atrocious. Vice no longer hid itself, but stalked forth before all eyes. Iniquity flamed up in all hearts, and innocence had ceased to exist. Immorality was so common that it was no longer talked of as a scandal.5 "Could we have seen depicted," says Jewett, "the inner life of this brilliant period of the Republic, we should have turned away from the sight with loathing and detestation." People flocked from all parts of the Empire to the Imperial City for speculation, for intrigue, for accomplishment in crime. Debauchery of every sort became so systematic and aggravated that it found its professors, who earned a livelihood by serving as instructors of the youth of quality in the theory and practice of crime.8 Nowhere was life less secure than in the capital, where murder was followed as a profession by trained bands.9 Women from aristocratic families exercised the art of lewd dancing; 10 and "it came to pass that ladies of high birth had themselves enrolled in the police register of common prostitutes, in order that they might abandon themselves entirely to the most wanton excesses." 11 Poverty alone was considered a disgrace, for many women of the first social standing surrendered their persons, and the highest officials their influence; whilst perjury was so universal that a false oath was called "the plaster of debts." 12 This was Rome morally in the noonday splendor of her art, her poetry, her oratory, her aggrandizement, her civil power. Meanwhile Rome and the provincial cities everywhere were full of temples and shrines, to which thousands flocked daily to perform their vows and sacrifices. With this picture contrast the moral condition of the Jews. 1 De Quincey's The Caesars, pp. 86, 87. 2 Uhlhorn's Conflict of Christianity with Heathendom, p. 96. 8 Gibbon's Decline, etc., p. 601. Uhlhorn, quoting Seneca, p. 95. 8 Mommsen, vol. iv. p. 614. |