Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

I ask’d of Time, to whom arose this high
Majestic pile, here mouldering in decay?
He answered not, but swifter sped his way
With ceaseless pinions winnowing the sky.
To Fame I turn’d: “Speak thou, whose sons defy
The waste of years, and deathless works essay.”
She heaved a sigh, as one to grief a prey
And silent, downward cast her tearful eye.
Onward I pass’d, but sad and thoughtful grown,
When, stern in aspect o’er the ruin’d shrine
I saw Oblivion stalk from stone to stone.
“Dread power,” I cried, “Tell me whose vast design.”
He check’d my further speech, in sullen tone:
“Whose once it was, I care not; now ’tis mine.”

RESULTS OF THE DISCOVERY OF AMERICA.

By JOHN LORD, LL.D.

The _material_ consequences of the discovery of America were brilliant and important. They first stimulated the passion for further explorations, and among all the maritime nations of Europe. Hence the voyages of Ojeda, of Nino, of Puiza, of Balboa, of Vespucci, of Cabot, of Raleigh, and various other men of enterprise. They did not rest until they had explored the coasts and rivers of the whole American continent, north and south. The Spaniards took the lead, and, following in their steps, the Portuguese doubled the Cape of Good Hope, and established their factories in the islands of the Indian Ocean. The Dutch and English were animated by the same zeal, until the East and West Indies were known to travelers and merchants. The French missionaries explored the wilds of the North, and sailed down the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence. In a few years the grand outlines of North and South America were known to geographical scholars. A new world was opened to the enterprise of Europeans. Then followed the conquest of such parts of America as stimulated the ambition and avarice of the Europeans, especially of Spain, who claimed the quarter part of the American continent. These conquests were atrocious, from the cruelties inflicted on the unsuspecting natives, to whom the country belonged. The discovery of the precious metals in Brazil, Peru, and Mexico, and the repute of their abundance, was the cause of these conquests.

At last followed colonization, not so much with a view of permanent settlement or agricultural improvements, as the desire and hope of getting rich in the mines. Colonization had no dignity until the English settled in Virginia and in New England. Gold was the first stimulus, a fertile country the second, and religious liberty the third. The views of those who colonized Virginia were different from those who landed on Plymouth Rock. But all the colonists doubtless sought to improve their condition; and for two hundred years and more the stream of emigration has flowed toward the West. The poor, the miserable, as well as the intelligent and enterprising in all parts of Europe, have regarded America as a refuge and a home.

We next notice an amazing stimulus to commerce, and the enrichment of Spain by the possession of the new mines of silver and gold. Wealth flowed in a steady stream to Spain, and that country became the richest and most powerful in Europe. The Spanish navy became the greatest in the world, and Spain prospered beyond all precedent.

Another interesting inquiry arises, how far the nations of Europe were really enriched by the rapid accumulation of gold and silver. The search for the precious metals may have stimulated commercial enterprise, but it is not so clear that they added to the substantial wealth of Europe, except so far as they promoted industry. Gold is not wealth; it is the exponent of wealth. Real wealth is in farms, and shops, and ships—in the various channels of industry, in the results of human labor.

So far as the precious metals enter into useful manufactures, or into articles of beauty and taste, they are indeed inherently valuable. Mirrors, plate, jewelry, watches, gilded furniture, the adornments of the person, in an important sense constitute wealth, since all nations value them and will pay for them as they do for corn and oil. So far as they are connected with art, they are valuable in the same sense as statues and pictures on which labor has been expended. There is something useful and even necessary besides food and raiment and houses. The gold which ornamented Solomon’s temple, or the Minerva of Phidias, or the garments of Leo X., had a value. The ring which is a present to brides is a part of a marriage ceremony. The gold watch, which never tarnishes, is more valuable inherently than a pewter one, because it remains beautiful. Then when gold enters into ornaments, deemed indispensable, or into manufactures which are needed, it has an inherent value. It is wealth. But when it is a mere medium of exchange—its chief use—then it has only a conventional value. I mean it does not make a nation rich or poor, since the rarer it is the more it will purchase of the necessities of life. A pound weight of gold in ancient Greece, or in mediæval Europe, would purchase as much wheat as twenty pounds weight would purchase to-day. If the mines of Mexico, or Peru, or California had never been worked, the gold in the civilized world three hundred years ago would have been as valuable for banking purposes, or as an exchange for agricultural products, as twenty times its present quantity, since it would have bought as much as twenty times the quantity would buy to-day. Make diamonds as plenty as crystals, they would be worth no more than crystals, if they were not harder and more beautiful than crystals. Make gold as plenty as silver, it would be worth no more than silver, except for manufacturing purposes. It would be worth no more than silver to bankers and merchants. The vast increase in the production of the precious metals simply increased the value of the commodities for which they were exchanged. A laborer can purchase no more bread with a dollar to-day than he could with five cents three hundred years ago. Five cents were really as much wealth three hundred years ago as a dollar is to-day. Wherein, then, has the increase in the precious metals added to the wealth of the world, if a twentieth part of the gold and silver now in circulation would buy as much land, or furniture, or wheat, or oil, three hundred years ago, as twenty times the quantity of gold and silver would buy to-day? Had no gold or silver mines been discovered in America, the gold and silver would have appreciated in value in proportion to the wear of them. In other words, the scarcer the gold and silver the more the same will purchase of the fruits of human industry. So industry is the wealth, not the gold. It is the cultivated farms and the manufactures, and the buildings, and the internal improvements of a country, which constitute its real wealth, since they represent its industry—the labor of men.

Mines indeed employ the labor of men, but they do not furnish food for the body, or raiment to wear, or houses to live in, or fuel for cooking, or for any purpose whatever of human comfort or necessity—only material for ornament, which I grant is wealth so far as ornament is for the welfare of man. The marbles of ancient Greece are very valuable for the labor expended on them either for architecture or ornament.

Gold and silver were early selected as a useful and convenient article of exchange, like bank notes, and so have inherent value as they supply that necessity, but if a quarter part of the gold and silver in existence would supply that necessity, the remaining three-fourths would be as inherently valueless as the paper on which bank notes are engraved. Value consists in what they represent of the labors and industries of men.

Now Spain ultimately became poor, in spite of the influx of gold and silver from the American mines, because industries of all kinds declined. People were diverted from useful callings by the mighty delusion which gold discoveries created. These discoveries had the same effect on industry, which is the wealth of nations, as the support of standing armies in our day. They diverted men from legitimate callings. The miners had to be supported like soldiers, and the sudden influx of gold and silver, intoxicated men and stimulated speculation. An army of speculators does not enrich a nation, since they rob each other. They earn money to change hands. They do not stimulate industry. They do not create wealth, they simply make it flow from one person to another.

But speculations sometimes create activity in enterprise. They inflame desire for wealth and cause people to make greater exertions. In that sense, the discovery of American mines gave a stimulus to commerce and travel and energy. People rushed to America for gold. Those people had to be fed and clothed. Then farmers and manufacturers followed the gold-hunters. They tilled the soil to feed the mines. The new farms which dotted the region of the gold diggers added to the wealth of the country in which the mines were located. Colonization followed gold-digging. But it was America that became enriched, not the old countries from which the miners came, except so far as the old countries furnished tools and ships and fabrics. Doubtless commerce and manufactures were stimulated. So far the wealth of the world increased. But the men who returned to riot in luxury and idleness did not stimulate enterprise. They made others idle also. The necessity of labor was lost sight of.

And yet if one country became idle, another country may have become industrious. There can be but little question that the discovery of American mines gave commerce and manufactures and agriculture, on the whole, a stimulus. This was particularly seen in England. England grew rich from industry and enterprise, as Spain became poor from idleness and luxury. The silver and gold, diffused through Europe, ultimately found their way into the pockets of Englishmen who made a market of their manufactures. It was not the precious metals which enriched England, but those articles of industry for which the rest of the world parted with their gold and silver. What has made France rich since the revolution? Those innumerable articles of taste and elegance, fabrics for which all Europe parted with its specie, not war, not conquest, not mines. Why, till recently, was Germany so poor?—because it had so little to sell to other nations—because industry was cramped by standing armies and despotic government.

One thing is certain, that the discovery of America opened a new field for industry and enterprise to all the discontented and impoverished and oppressed Europeans who emigrated. At first they emigrated to dig silver and gold. The opening of mines required labor, and miners were obliged to part with their gold for the necessities of life. Thus California, in our day, has become peopled with farmers and merchants and manufacturers as well as miners. Many came to America expecting to find gold and were disappointed and were obliged to turn agriculturists, as in Virginia. Many came to New England from political and religious motives. But all came to better their fortunes. Gradually the United States and Canada became populated from east to west, and from north to south. The surplus population of Europe poured itself into the wilds of America. Generally the emigrants were farmers. With the growth of agricultural industry was developed commerce and manufactures. Thus, materially, the world was immensely benefited. A new continent was opened for industry. No matter what the form of government may be—I might almost say no matter what the morals and religion of the people may be—so long as there is land to occupy, and to be sold cheap, the continent will fill up, and will be as densely populated as Europe or Asia, because the natural advantages are good. The rivers and the lakes will be navigated. The products of the country will be exchanged for European and Asiatic products. Wealth will certainly increase, and increase indefinitely.

There is no calculating the future greatness and wealth of the new world, especially in the United States. There are no bounds to commerce, manufactures, and agricultural products. We can predict with certainty the rise of new cities, villas, palaces, material splendor limited only to the increasing resources and population of the country. Who can tell the number of miles of new railroads yet to be made, the new inventions to abridge human labor? What great empires are destined to rise! What unknown forms of luxury will be found out! What new and magnificent trophies of art and science will gradually be seen! What mechanisms, what material glories are sure to come! This is not speculation. Nothing can retard the growth of America in material wealth and glory. The tower of the new Babel will rise to the clouds, and be seen in all its glory throughout the earth and sea. No Fourth of July orator ever exaggerated the future destinies of America in a material point of view. No “spread eagle” politician ever conceived what is sure to come.

And what then? Grant the most indefinite expansion—the growth of empires whose splendor and wealth and power shall utterly eclipse the glories of the old world. All this is probable. But when we have dwelt on the future material expansion—when we have given wings to imagination, and feel that even imagination can not reach the probable realities, in a material aspect, then our predictions and calculations stop. Beyond material glories we can not count with certainty.

The world has witnessed many powerful empires which have passed away, “leaving scarcely a wreck behind.” What remains of the antediluvian world? Not even a spike of Noah’s Ark, larger and stronger than any modern ship. What remains of Babylon, of Thebes, of Tyre, of Carthage—those great cities of wealth and power? What remains of Roman greatness, even, except in laws and literature, and renovated statues? Remember, there is an undeviating uniformity in the past history of nations. What is the simple story of all the ages?—industry, wealth, corruption, decay and ruin. What conservative power has been strong enough to arrest the ruin of the nations of antiquity? Have not material forces and glories been developed and exhibited, whatever the religion and morals of the fallen nations? Can not a country grow materially to a point under the most adverse influence in a religious and moral point of view? Yet for lack of religion and morals the nations perished, and their Babel towers were buried in the dust. They perished for lack of true conservative forces—at least that is the judgment of historians. Nobody doubts the splendor of the material glories of the ancient nations. The ruins of Baalbec, of Palmyra, of Athens, prove this, to say nothing of history. The material glories of the ancient nations may be surpassed by our modern wonders, but yet all the material glories of the ancient nations passed away.

Now, if this is to be the destiny of America—an unbounded material growth, followed by corruption and ruin, then Columbus has simply extended the realm for men to try material experiments. Make New York a second Carthage, and Boston a second Athens, and Philadelphia a second Antioch, and Washington a second Rome, and we simply repeat the old experiment. Did not the Romans have nearly all we have, materially, except our modern scientific inventions? But has America no higher destiny than to repeat the old experiments, and improve upon them and become rich and powerful? Has she no higher and nobler mission? Can she lay hold of forces that the old world never had, such as will prevent the uniform doom of nations? I maintain that there is no reason that can be urged, based on history and experience, why she should escape the fate of the nations of antiquity, unless new forces arise on this continent, different from what the world has known, and which have a conservative influence. If America has a great mission to declare and to fulfill, she must put forth altogether new forces, and they not material. That alone will save her, and save the world. It is mournful to contemplate even the future material glories of America, if they are not to be preserved—if these are to share the fate of ancient wonders. It is obvious that the real glory of America is to be something entirely different from that of which the ancients boasted. And this is to be to the moral and spiritual, that which the ancients lacked. And this leads me to speak of the moral consequences of the discovery of America—infinitely grander than any material wonders, of which the world has been full, of which nearly every form of paganism has boasted, and which must necessarily perish, everywhere, without new forces to preserve them. In a moral point of view scarcely anything good resulted, at least to Europe, by the discovery of America. It excited the wildest spirit of adventure, the most unscrupulous cupidity, the most demoralizing speculations. It created jealousies and wars. The cruelties and injustices inflicted on the Indians were revolting. Nothing in the annals of the world exceeded the wickednesses of the Spaniards in the conquest of Peru and Mexico. That conquest is the most dismal and least glorious in human history. We see no poetry or heroism or necessity. We read of nothing but crimes. The Jesuits, in their missionary zeal, partly redeemed the cruelties, but they soon imposed a despotic yoke and made their religion pay. Monopolies scandalously increased, and the New World was regarded only as spoil. The tone of moral feeling was lowered everywhere, for the natives were crazed with the hope of sudden accumulation. Spain became enervated and demoralized.

On America itself the demoralization was even more marked. There never was such a state of moral degradation in any Christian country as in South America. Three centuries have passed, and the low state of morals continues. Contrast Mexico and Peru with the United States, morally and intellectually. What seeds of vice did not the Spaniards plant! How the old natives melted away!

And then, to add to the moral evils attending colonization, is the introduction of African slaves, especially in the West Indies and the Southern States. Christendom seems to have lost the seed of morality. Slavery more than counterbalances all other advantages together. It was the stain of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Not merely slavery but the slave trade increases the horror of the frightful picture. America became associated, in the minds of Europeans, with gold hunting, slavery, and cruelty to Indians. Better that the country remained undiscovered than the introduction of such vices and miseries in the most fertile part of the New World.

I can not see that civilization gained anything, morally, by the discovery of America, until the new settlers were animated by other motives than a desire of sudden wealth. When the country became colonized by men who sought liberty to worship God, men of lofty purposes, willing to undergo sufferings and danger in order to plant the seeds of a higher civilization, then there arose new forms of social and political life. Such men were those who colonized New England. And say what you will, in spite of all the disagreeable side of the Puritan character, it was the Puritans who gave a new impulse to civilization in its higher sense. They founded schools and colleges and churches. They introduced a new form of political life by their town meetings, in which liberty was nurtured, and all social improvements were regulated; it was the autonomy of towns on which the political structure rested. In them was born that true representative government which has gradually spread toward the West. The colonies were embryo states, states afterward to be bound together by a stronger tie than that of a league.

The New England States, since the War of Independence, were the defenders and advocates of a central power. An entirely new political organization gradually was formed, resting equally on such pillars as independent townships and independent states, and these represented by delegates in a national center.

So we believe America was discovered not so much to furnish a field for indefinite material expansion, with European arts and fashions, which would simply assimilate America with the old world, with all its dangers and vices and follies, as to introduce new forms of government, new social institutions, new customs and manners, new experiments in liberty, new religious organizations, new modes to ameliorate the necessary evils of life. It was discovered that men might labor and employ the fruits of industry in a new mode, unfettered by the slaveries which the institutions of Europe imposed. America was a new field to try experiments in government and social life, which could not be tried in other nations without sweeping and dangerous revolutions. And new institutions have arisen which are our pride and boast, and which are the wonder and admiration of Europe. America is the only country under the sun in which there is self-government—a government which purely represents the wisdom of the people, where universal suffrage is not a mockery—and if America has a destiny to fulfill for other nations, she must give them something more valuable than reaping machines, palace cars and horse railroads. She must give, not machinery to abridge labor, but institutions and ideas to expand the mind and elevate the soul—something by which the poor can rise and assert their rights. Unless something is developed here which can not be developed in other countries in the way of new spiritual and intellectual forces which have a conservative influence, then I can not see how America can long continue to be the home and refuge of the poor and miserable of other lands. A new and better spirit must vivify schools and colleges and philanthropic enterprises than that which has prevailed in older nations. Unless something new is born here which has a peculiar power to save, wherein will America ultimately differ from other parts of Christendom? We must have schools in which the heart as well as the brain is educated, and newspapers which aspire to something higher than to fan prejudices and appeal to perverted tastes. Our hope is not in books which treat infidelity under the name of science; not in pulpits which can not be sustained without sensational oratory; not in journals which trade on the religious sentiments of the people; nor Sabbath-school books which are an insult to the human understanding; nor colleges which fit youth merely for making money; nor schools of technology to give an impulse to material interests; nor legislatures controlled by monopolists; nor judges elected by demagogues; nor philanthropic societies to ventilate impractical theories. These will neither renovate nor conserve what is most precious in life. Unless a nation grows morally as well as materially, there is something wrong at the core of society. As I have said, no material expansion will avail if society becomes rotten at the core. America is a glorious boon to civilization, but only as she fulfills a new mission in history—not to become more potent in material forces, but in those spiritual agencies which prevent corruption and decay. An infidel professor calling himself a _savant_, may tell you that there is nothing certain or great but in the direction of science to utilities, even as he may boast in a philosophy which ignores a creator and takes cognizance only of a creation. As I survey the growing and enormous moral evils which degrade society here as everywhere, in spite of Bunker Hills and Plymouth Rocks, and all the advance in useful mechanisms, I am sometimes tempted to propound inquiries which suggest the old mournful story of the decline and ruin of states and empires. I ask myself “Why will America be an exception to the uniform fate of nations, as history has demonstrated? why should not good institutions be presented here as in all other countries and ages of the world?” When has civilization shown any striking triumph except in inventions to abridge the labor of mankind and make men comfortable and rich? Is there nothing before us then but the triumph of material life, to end as mournfully as the materialism of antiquity? If so, then Christianity is a most dismal failure, is a defeated power, like all other forms of religion which failed to save. But is it a failure? Are we really swinging back to paganism? Is the time to be hailed when all religions will be considered by the philosopher as equally false and equally useful? Is there nothing more cheerful for us to contemplate than what the old pagan philosophy holds out,—man destined to live like brutes or butterflies, and pass away into the infinity of time and space, like inert matter, decomposed, absorbed, and entering into new and everlasting combination? Is America to become like Europe and Asia in all essential elements of life? Has she no other mission than to add to perishable glories? Is she to teach the world nothing new in education, and philanthropy, and government? Are all her struggles in behalf of liberty in vain? Is Christianity to move round her in circles of milliners and upholsterers, and fanaticisms, and dogmatisms, and superstitions?

We all know that Christianity is the only hope of the world. The question is whether America is, or is not, more favorable for its healthy development and application than the other countries of Christendom. We believe that it is. If it is not, then America is only a new field for the spread and triumph of material forces. If it is, we may look forward to such improvements in education, in political institutions, in social life, in religious organizations, in philanthropical enterprise, that the country will be sought by the poor and enslaved classes of Europe, more for its moral and intellectual advantages, than for mines or farms, and the objects of the Puritan settlers will be gained.

“What sought they then afar?
Bright jewels of the mines?
The wealth of seas? the spoils of war?
They sought for faith’s pure shrine.

“Yes, call it holy ground,
Which first their brave feet trod,
They left unstained what there they found,
Freedom to worship God.”

SONGS IN WINTER.

By DAVID BUXTON.

[During a gloomy November the singing of a bird was
heard daily in Regent’s Park, London; beginning before
daylight and continuing until sunset.]

Welcome and glad, this dim November morning,
The lone bird singing from a leafless tree,
Cheering the chilly world ere earliest dawning;—
Nor is its cheery message missed by me.

The bird’s sweet song is but the Father’s teaching;
Gladness and joy He sends for every hour—
Sends both, in answer to true heart’s beseeching,
Whether the sun is bright or tempests lower.

Dark night hath stars; dark cloud its “silver lining;”
Something of sunshine lightens darkest days;
Happy the heart in trust and faith divining
God’s light and leading through life’s dreariest ways.

So would I sing, and sing like thee, till silence
Shall tell that we have passed beyond the flood—
Thou, to sing on in some isle far-distant hence,
I, farther still, at home, in heaven, with God.

JOYS OF HIGH COMPANIONSHIP.

By ARTHUR HELPS.

The joys, not merely of high companionship, but of any companionship that is tolerably pleasant, are so great, that a man with whom all other things go ill, can not be classed as an unhappy man, if he has throughout his life much of this pleasant companionship.

The desire for companionship is absolutely universal. Even misanthropy is but the desire for companionship, turned sour. This desire extends throughout creation. It is very noticeable in domestic animals; and could we fathom the causes of their sociability, we should probably have arrived at a solution of several important questions relating to them and to ourselves.

The most fascinating people in the world have, I believe, been simply good companions. Shakspere, as he knew most things, knew this, and has shown that he knew it, in what he has indicated to us of the loves of Brutus and Portia, of Antony and Cleopatra, and of Rosalind and Orlando.

I think it must be admitted that one of the main objects of life is good companionship. “What,” says Emerson, “is the end of all this apparatus of living—what but to get a number of persons who shall be happy in each other’s society, and be seated at the same table?”

The first thing for companionship is, that there should be a good relation between the persons who are to become good companions to each other. It is not well to use a foreign phrase if it can be avoided, but there are foreign phrases which are supremely significant, and utterly untranslatable. I therefore say that those people I have spoken of should be _en rapport_ with one another. This _rapport_ may have its existence in various ways. The relationship of mother and son, of father and daughter, will give it; the love that some people have for children will give it with children; similar bringing up at school or at college may give it; similarity of present pursuits may give it. But before all and above all, that incomprehensible, unfathomable thing called personal liking—that which you feel (or the contrary of which you feel), frequently at first sight—will be sure to give it. We use the phrase “falling in love:” we might perhaps use the phrase “falling in liking” to describe a similar unavoidable precipitancy.

The beginning once made, the basis once laid for this companionship, what are the qualities which tend to make it continuously pleasant?

The first thing is confidence. Now, in using the word confidence, it is not meant to imply that there is an absolute necessity for much confidingness in small things. Wilhelm von Humboldt has expressed an opinion which is worth noting in reference to this subject. “Friendship and love,” he says, “require the deepest and most genuine confidence, but lofty souls do not require the trivial confidences of familiarity.”

The kind of confidence that Humboldt means, and which is required for companionship as well as for friendship and love, puts aside all querulous questions as to whether the companions like one another as much to-day as they did yesterday. Steadfastness is to be assumed. And, also a certain unchangeableness. “He is a wonderfully agreeable person,” said a neighbor of one of the best talkers of the day; “but I have to renew my acquaintance with him every morning.” That good talker can not be held to be a good companion in a high sense of the word. Again, this steadfastness makes allowance for all variations of humor, temperament, and fortune. It prevents one companion from attributing any change that there may be in the other, of manner, of bearing, or of vivacity, to a change in the real relation between the companions. He does not make any of these things personal towards himself. Silence is not supposed to be offence. Hence there is no occasion to make talk, a thing which is fatal to companionship. One reason why some of us enjoy so much the society of animals, is because we need not talk to them if we do not like. And, indeed, with a thoroughly good human companion, you ought to be able to feel as if you were quite alone.

Difference of temperament is no hindrance whatever to companionship. Indeed, the world has generally recognized that fact. We all know that the ardent and the timid, the hopeful and the despondent, the eager and the apathetic, get on very well together. What may not always have been as clearly perceived is, that there are certain diversities of nature, chiefly relating to habits, which produce, not agreeable contrasts, but downright fatal discords. And, in such cases, companionship of a high kind is hopeless.

Let us suppose that the principal requisites for companionship have been attained; first, the basis for it created by personal liking, early association, similarity of pursuits, and the like; secondly, the means of continuing it, such as this confidence that has been spoken of, the absence of contravening tastes, the absence of unreasonable expectation, and the like. Now, for what remain to be considered as the essential requisites for high companionship, we must enter into what is almost purely intellectual. For this high companionship there must be an interest in many things, at least on one side, and on the other a great power of receptivity. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the needfulness of these elements. Look at results. Consider the nature of those men and women whom you have found, if I may use the phrase, to be splendid companions. It is not exactly their knowledge that has made them so; it is their almost universal interest in everything that comes before them. This quality will make even ignorant people extremely good companions to the most instructed persons. It is not, however, the relation of tutor to pupil that is contemplated here. That is certainly not the highest form of companionship. The kind of ignorant person that I mean, if he or she should be one of the companions, is to be intensely receptive and appreciative, and his or her remarks are very dear and very pleasant to the most instructed person. Is not the most valuable part of all knowledge very explicable, and do you not find that you can make your best thoughts intelligible, if you have any clearness of expression, to persons not exactly of your own order, if you will only take the pains to do so?

* * * * *

RUSKIN AND WHISTLER.—A good deal of amusement was created by an account that on one occasion a picture of Mr. Whistler’s was publicly produced, and neither judge nor jury could tell which was the top and which the bottom. Whether the legend is true or not we are in no position to say; but it is certainly as true as the coincidence is curious that at the Winter Exhibition of the Society of Painters in Water-Colors, 1873-74, a lovely and elaborate architectural drawing by Mr. Ruskin was placed upside down. Thus it remained for a time, until some sharp-sighted visitor discovered the fact. The work was No. 105, “Study of the Colors of Marble in the Apse of the Duomo of Pisa,” and exhibited with “Study of the Colors of Marble in the Base of the Church of St. Anastasia at Verona,” No. 97. There is a third story to a similar effect. When John Martin had finished his well-known “Zadok in Search of the Waters of Oblivion,” which was more than once engraved, he sent for the framemaker’s men to frame it, and having occasion to remain in a room adjoining his studio while they were in the latter room, he was edified by a loud dispute between the men as to which was the top, which the bottom of his picture.

EGYPT FOR THE EGYPTIANS.

By JUDGE G. M. BARBER.

“Egypt for the Egyptians!” was the motto of the national party in their attempted revolution. What is Egypt, and who are the Egyptians? Let history answer. Modern investigations and the translation of hieroglyphics and inscriptions found in tombs carry back the evidences of its existence as a nation at least a thousand years prior to the period fixed by the translators of the Mosaic record for the creation of man. During all these cycles of ages these wonderful people have maintained their existence along the narrow region watered and enriched by the Nile. Neither pestilence nor famine, invasion and subjugation by other peoples, nor internal discord, has supplanted them by other or different races; nor have they been allured to abandon the homes of their ancestors for more fruitful lands or mineral wealth, or commercial advantages. Although in turn they have been conquerors, and held in subjection other lands and other peoples, and have been themselves the conquered and compelled to bear the yoke of people more powerful than themselves, they have remained the same simple agricultural people, among whom have always existed types of squalid poverty and luxurious wealth, self-sacrificing devotion to a religion, and the most wanton lasciviousness: the most deplorable ignorance and the most exalted scientific knowledge and mechanical skill.

Over this interesting country and people Mohammedanism has for several centuries spread its baleful influence, keeping out the light of Christianity and western civilization. During most of the time since 1517 it has been under the dominion of Turkey. In the early part of the eighteenth century the Mamelukes, who constituted the military under Ali Bey, threw off the Turkish yoke and maintained their independence until the invasion by Napoleon in 1798, who conquered it for the French and held it until 1801, when Mehemet Ali became Pasha. After restoring tranquility by a treacherous assassination of five hundred Mamelukes, and the expulsion of the remainder from the country, he turned his arms against Turkey, conquered Syria and a great part of Asia Minor, and was in a fair way to capture Constantinople when the European powers, England, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, interfered and compelled him to make peace with the sultan. This was in 1833. In 1839 the sultan sent an army of 80,000 men and a large fleet to retake Ali’s conquests. This army was defeated and the fleet surrendered to Ali and was brought to Alexandria. The powers of Europe again interfered to prevent the overthrow and destruction of the Turkish Empire, England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, taking sides with Turkey, while France, under Thiers, favored Ali. England, however, sent a fleet, blockaded Alexandria, bombarded and captured Beyrut and Acre, and compelled Ali to accept peace, dictated by the allies, and to accept the pashalic of Egypt, guaranteed to him and his descendants on condition of his paying one-fourth of his clear revenues to the sultan.

This short history is necessary to understand the relation of Egypt to Turkey, and how the European powers have come to take part in the affairs of Egypt. Mehemet Ali became ruler of Egypt in 1805, under the title of pasha. Finding his ambition to conquer Turkey frustrated by the European powers, he attempted to introduce into the administration of his government European systems and the institutions of western civilization. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Ibrahim, who lived but two months, and was followed by his nephew, Abbas, and after six years reign of Abbas by Saïd, the fourth son of Ali, who had a prosperous reign of nine years and was succeeded in January, 1863, by Ismaïl Pasha, the son of Ibrahim. The policy of modernizing Egypt, inaugurated by Mehemet Ali, was followed by Saïd, although wholly neglected during the unsatisfactory rule of Abbas.

Ismaïl was educated in France, and had imbibed as thoroughly as his grandfather, Mehemet, western ideas, and as fully appreciated the superiority of European civilization over eastern opulence and luxury. His ambition was to accomplish what Mehemet had been prevented from accomplishing by the interference of the European powers—to be independent of Turkey. He seems to have had the idea that he could at once lift Egypt from its condition of semi-barbarism into the civilization of the nineteenth century. The public works which he constructed must have appeared to his simple agricultural people more wonderful than a realization of the stories of the Arabian Nights. He built railroads and telegraphs, constructed harbors and wharfs for the largest vessels, and opened Alexandria to the commerce of the world. He lighted his cities with gas, and supplied them with water by means of aqueducts, constructed canals for irrigation, built bridges, established military schools, and increased his army until it excited the jealousy of Turkey. In addition to all these he paid nearly one-half the cost of constructing the Suez Canal, from which there is scarcely a maritime nation in the world that does not reap greater benefit than Egypt. The expenditures for these improvements not only absorbed his revenues, but involved him in enormous debts. Soon he was unable to pay interest, and at once European capitalists refused to make additional loans, and demanded payment. In his extreme need of money he sold his shares of stock in the Suez Canal, 177,000 shares, to the English government for £4,000,000. Every dollar that could be raised by taxation was taken from the property owners and the poor fellahs; and when he could get no more he resorted to the “Muskabala” policy, which consisted in giving immunity for all time from land taxes on the payment by the owner of an agreed assessment; one of the most short sighted pieces of statesmanship ever devised, to sell immunity to the rich at the expense of the poor. The finances fell into a state of inextricable confusion. Ismaïl had no definite knowledge of his indebtedness or of his resources. In this dilemma he applied to the English government, which sent him two eminent financiers, who investigated his financial condition, and reported the public debt to be £91,000,000, or nearly $500,000,000, and recommended a consolidated loan on bonds at reduced interest. This project was opposed by the other European powers, and it failed. An arrangement was finally agreed upon which satisfied all parties. A comptroller-general of the revenue and a comptroller-general of the debt and audit were to be appointed, one by the English and one by the French governments, who should have entire control of the public revenue, its collection and application to the payment of the expenses of the government and the interest and principal of the public debt. The personal creditors of the khedive also demanded an investigation of his personal indebtedness and resources, and the adoption of measures which should bring his expenditures within his resources, and provide for the payment of his debts. A commission was appointed, of which M. De Lesseps was president, consisting of representatives of France, England, Germany, Austria and Italy.

This commission reported the khedive’s personal indebtedness to be £6,744,000, and that his resources were wholly insufficient to pay his current expenses and the interest, and recommended that he surrender all his private estates to the government, and that it assume his liabilities, and pay him and the members of his family a fixed stipend for their support. This proposition was accepted by Ismaïl in a speech which shows that, with all his faults, he has noble traits of character. As an evidence of his good faith he conveyed all his estates to the government, and received in return an annual allowance for the support of himself and his family. Although Ismaïl was controlled by European influence his administration of public affairs was to some extent influenced by native ministers, the principal and most influential of whom were Nubar, Chérif, Riaz, and Ismaïl Sadyk, Pashas. Messrs. Rivers Wilson, and De Bligniers, as representatives of the English and French governments held portfolios in the ministry, having virtually control of finances.

In the latter part of 1878 the crisis was approaching. All the debts could not be paid in full, and the commissioners decided that the sacrifices should be borne equally by all.

On February 18, 1879, a council of ministers was held at Cairo. As Minister Nubar Pasha and Mr. Rivers Wilson were leaving in a carriage, they were stopped by a crowd of army officers, clamoring for payment of arrears of their salaries. The ministers were grossly insulted, their coachman wounded, and they pursued to Nubar’s private apartments, where they were held prisoners until the khedive came with a regiment of soldiers and dispersed the mob. This affair created intense excitement in London and Paris, where it was believed that the attack on Nubar and Mr. Rivers Wilson was instigated by the khedive as a means to get rid of Nubar as prime minister, for whom he entertained a profound aversion. It will be remembered that he was a Christian, and had the confidence of the European powers, and was appointed at the dictation of the foreign bondholders. He immediately resigned and an apology was made to Mr. Wilson, which he accepted. On the 7th of April, 1879, the culmination of the crisis was precipitated by the khedive and the Egyptians themselves. It seemed to be a last struggle of Egyptians for independence, and was the first real effort to save Egypt for the Egyptians. Ismaïl dismissed his ministry, which had been practically forced upon him by the European powers, and appointed a new one, composed wholly of Egyptians, with Chérif Pasha as prime minister. Wilson and De Bligniers were dismissed, but they refused to surrender their offices and appealed to their governments. It was a rebellion of Egypt against the western powers, and the khedive was supported by all the political and religious influences of the country.

The pashas, the harems, the ulemans, the priests, and the principal land owners combined to support him in his effort to regain his lost power. The last straw was laid on the camel’s back when the new ministry issued a decree on April 22, 1879, virtually suspending payment of all foreign debts. This was followed by a demand from the English and French governments for the abdication of Ismaïl, and on the 25th of June, 1879, he received an order from the Porte to abdicate in favor of his son, Mehemet Tewfik, which he obeyed, and Tewfik was immediately proclaimed khedive, as Tewfik I. Liberal provision was made for Ismaïl and his family in a style commensurate with the dignity of an oriental viceroyalty.

Tewfik formed three successive ministries within four months, the last on September 21, 1879, in which Osman Pasha was made Minister of War. On demand of England Messrs. Baring and De Bligniers were appointed comptrollers-general of finance with unrestricted authority, and an order issued that all subjects of the khedive should be treated alike, the pashas and other officials being required to pay taxes, and in failure to do so their rents were to be seized and their produce sold. The condition of Egypt was now most deplorable. It was at war with Abyssinia and a most disastrous famine prevailed. It is authoritatively reported that in September, October, November and December, 1879, 700,000 people in Egypt were in a starving condition, and that 10,000 actually died from that cause. When we consider that this state of things was brought about by forced collections of taxes to pay interest to European bondholders, and through methods forced upon them for that purpose, we need not be surprised that antipathy should arise to European interference, and that some efforts should be made to relieve this people of those oppressive burdens.

For the purpose of consolidating the public debt, and to form a plan for its liquidation, a commission was established of representatives of the English, French, Italian, Austrian and Egyptian governments. A plan was prepared by this commission and a law drafted to carry it into effect, which was adopted by the ministry, and at once put into operation. It consolidated all debts created before 1880, and provided for the issuing of bonds for the principal, and coupons for the interest, and that no suit could be brought on such debts except as the coupons and bonds should mature, and for an equitable division and appropriation of the income so that current expenses should be paid and the surplus applied to the interest and principal of the debt, and the collection of taxes was fixed to correspond with the ripening of the crops. This was the first step toward bringing order out of chaos. The result surpassed the most sanguine hopes of the government. The fellahs were able to pay their taxes out of their crops and have a surplus. Instead of forced collections the people came voluntarily to the collectors, anxious and able to pay their taxes. Land rose in the market, and the future looked prosperous for Egypt.

The very success which attended the efforts of the foreign commissioners in extricating the country from the quicksands into which it had fallen—creating confidence and bringing in capital from abroad, only hastened the time when the religious national prejudices would be aroused. It was irksome to them to see all the important public offices in the hands of foreigners. The better the new system worked, the more impatient they were to get rid of foreign domination. Add to this the fact that the salaries paid these foreign officials were greater than are paid for like services in any civilized country in the world, and were unheard of in Egypt, and you can see the real cause of the discontent of the people, out of which grew the National party. Their motto became “Egypt for the Egyptians.”

On the 2d of February, 1881, a mutiny broke out in the army. Osman Reski Pasha, minister of war, had become obnoxious to the officers of the army, of whom a great number were unemployed. Osman was accused of promoting Turkish subjects to positions in the army to the exclusion of natives, and of treating the latter with contempt. The colonels of the bodyguard and two other regiments drew up and presented to the khedive a petition for his removal. It came into the hands of Osman, who arrested and placed them in confinement in the citadel. The soldiers of the guard stormed the citadel and released the colonels, who marched with them to the palace and demanded an audience of the khedive. He ordered the insubordinate colonels under arrest, but they refused to obey him. On consultation with his ministers, he finally yielded to their demands, and dismissed Osman. Ahmed Arabi Bey was the leader of this movement, and the most popular of the three colonels. Some years before he had been dismissed from his position by Ismaïl without any good reason, and from that time he determined to devote himself to the work of securing for army officers a fair trial, and of protecting the fellaheen from the tyranny and oppression of government officials. He and his fellow-officers at that time contemplated a rising in favor of popular rights, but were deterred by the belief that they would be overpowered. Arabi was chosen leader, and seven days after the last occurrence he presented a demand for the dismissal of the entire ministry, the formation of a constitution and an increase of the army, and gave notice that the troops would appear before the palace at four o’clock of that day, and wait until the demand was complied with. At the hour appointed, four thousand troops and eighteen pieces of artillery were drawn up before the palace under the command of Arabi. The khedive again yielded, formed a new ministry, and ordered an assembly of notables to be elected by the people to inaugurate a representative system of government. The independence and enthusiasm with which the fellaheen voted for these representatives revealed to the world the fact that liberal political ideas and the nationalistic principles of the popular party had taken deep root in the minds of this ancient race, “which once bore the torch of civilization, but since has tilled the fertile valley of the Nile under the whip of many masters.”

The Chamber of Notables resolved that in the new organization they would control the ministry and the financial affairs and every other department of the government. This was a declaration of war on the policy of foreign supervision, and created consternation among all who were interested in Egyptian securities. Arabi come to the front as Minister of War, and was made a pasha. When the session closed on March 24, 1882, he and his friends were masters of the situation. His next step was to dispose of the Turkish and Circassian officers who stood in the way of his plans. They were charged with conspiracy, tried by a secret court, and sentenced to confinement for life. At this juncture Admiral Seymour, with an English fleet, was sent to Alexandria with the avowed purpose of supporting the khedive. England and France now demanded that Arabi should be dismissed from the ministry and sent out of Egypt, as he was thought to be the principal disturbing element. He however refused to obey the khedive’s order to that effect, and became practically the ruler of Egypt. The army was the willing instrument of his ambition.

The next act in the drama came without warning, and startled the world by its atrocity. On June 11, 1882, a bloody riot occurred in Alexandria, in which about three hundred and eighty Europeans were killed, with a species of brutality known only to the fanatical followers of Mahomet in northern Egypt, and discounted the ferocity of the North American Indians. Arabi was accused of complicity in it, and the fact that he was in Alexandria, near the scene of the massacre, at the head of 6,000 troops, and made no effort to stop the slaughter of women and children which was going on, renders it probable that the accusation is true. However, after five hours delay, he took what appeared to be vigorous measures to stop the slaughter. It was evidently the outburst of the race hatred of Moslem against Christian, and Arabs against Europeans. It was the harvest of blood from the seed sown broadcast by Arabi and the National party in carrying on their plans to secure Egypt for the Egyptians. This massacre was followed by the flight from Egypt of all Europeans and Americans who could get away, as it was apparent it was the beginning of more serious trouble.