And the armor we have worn But while counting o'er our host, While the battle's rage was strong, Earnest hearts would lead them. And, as the departing day Still they sung that glorious song, Ah! upon the battle field, Caring not to rest from strife, “Brothers, raise the triumph song; "Pause not for the battle's spoil, IN THAT GOOD TIME GLORIOUS!" ART. V.-ETHOLOGY. Is Science antagonistic to the true development of man? Pardon us for putting the interrogatory. We would not question, had not the negative been seriously maintained, if not directly, yet indirectly, by many of the leading thinkers of the time. Macaulay, in his youthful essay on Milton, maintained that the growth of the world in civilization, was the decay of the poetic fervor; and, consequently, of the heroic quality, which others regard as the only index and quality of manhood. His maturer reflection disavowed the idea. The character and elevation of the poetry of our time, proves, that a rude, unsettled, unscientific age is not the age of true poetry, however rich it may be in metaphorical language, and however great in Hesiods, Homers and Ossians. There is no beauty withdrawn from the rainbow by the unweaving of its many-hued tissue by the analysis of Newton; no glory withdrawn from the stars by the telescope of Rosse, or the philosophic ken of Herschell; and no fascination taken from the unreal creations of fancy by the real developments of Chemistry, Geology or Astronomy; nay, further, and which is more to our present purpose, there is nothing withdrawn from man, which tends to ennoble and dignify character, by the utmost reach of analysis, applied to character. Nevertheless, there are many who will reason pertinaciously to prove, that in all that makes human nature noble and heroic -in all that tends to the formation of character, a scientific, logical, analytic, probing age is wanting. So far do some carry this idea, that they reject with scorn all the processes of right reason, and flinging out dim hints of scholastic subtlety and inutility, maintain that a blind, uncontrolled, dashing impulse, is the only true index of heroism. Duty is made subservient to inclination. Right is made to yield to mental energy and reckless wilfulness. Art is stigmatized as nothing more than superficial trickery. The transcript of nature by the pencil of genius is regarded as effeminacy; while a bold impostor like Mahomet, or a great and ambitious soldier like Cromwell, are deified as the very Gods themselves. It is contended, that just in proportion as man advances in power over the material world, obtains "an intellectual mastery over the blind elements," and enriches the cabinet of Truth, with specimens, which may be felt, seen, and applied to useful purposes, he retrogrades in meekness, humility, patience, love, and all the virtues which constitute true character. This view of human progress has given occasion to some fine writing by some of the spirits of the time. With what "purfled prettiness of phrase do they glide over the substantial elements of character, and play with their own feathery fancies. Such writers as Whewell, Mill, Chalmers and Wayland, with their massive thought and invincible logic, are to such, the embodiments of plodding, methodical common sense. Give them no such ordinary minds. We would not attribute either inability to comprehend, or laziness in mental labor to such. O! no. When Carlyle, in his peculiar way, thunders his peals against the system-makers, and holds them up with a broad grin of delight, all plastered over with his beautiful epithets, who can help pitying them; and who can help concluding the writer to be anything else but the reverse of these systemmakers?. Then, too, how easy to read and comprehend the huge generalities and vague spiritualities of writers of this class. How classic and elegant their denunciations of science. Astronomy is brushed away by an antithesis; and the "older and nobler astronomy," which did not condescend to number the stars and map them down in vulgar nautical charts, must suffice in its stead. Botany is said, by one of those writers, to have a value; (very considerate!) but what is it in comparison. with the old lessons of the flowers! No doubt the moralists and scientific men of the day are much beholden to these great souled denunciators. They should drop science and logic, and go into the field to pick posies and wear them, like Jean Paul, in their button holes; break their telescopes, and listen to the star-tongued night for the music of the spheres; cease to delve into the earth with safety lamps after useful ore, and run, like a child after the rainbow. Thus only will their characters grow into "the image of beauty and truth." Otherwise, woe to them and our material age! Our humble view of the formation of character doth not coincide with this. Not only do we believe that dialectics tend to form true men; indirectly by arresting the vagrant thinkers and impulsive pseudo reformers of the time; but directly, by straightening and developing the character. As exercise and uprightness give a fine form and physical health; so systematic training and consecutive thought tend to beautify and develop the human soul. These may seem common place thoughts. But we believe, further, that this very formation of character can itself be systematized scientifically. Before another century the infant science of ETHOLOGY, which has this for its object, will be as well understood in its principles, as it will be salutary in its influence upon human action. To elucidate the principles of this science is our present purpose. The term "6 'Ethology" is, in one sense, new. It was first applied by that sound thinker, John Stuart Mill, in his recent admirable work on Logic. He takes it from ethos, a word very nearly synonymous with disposition, character or manners. There is a propriety in the term. Aristotle applies it, in his treatise on Poetry, to the peculiar characteristics of the dramatis persone in a tragedy. Psychology is the science of the elementary laws of mind. Ethology, as will be more fully seen in the sequel, is a science subordinate to the former. It determines the kind of character produced, in conformity to those general laws, by any set of circumstances. The first duty of him who undertakes to propagate a new science, is to repel all objections and surmount prejudice. Mr. Mill has performed this duty. We shall have occasion to refer to his treatise, in considering the objections. These are of two kinds. The first is, as to the practicability or utility of such a science as Ethology; the second, as to the possibility of perfecting such a science. If the last were true, it would preclude a discussion of the first. Both objections are rather the result of a certain vagueness and want of precision which distinguish popular fallacy. A science of character is not impossible. It should not be constructed out of a priori generalizations. While it is founded on the elementary laws which govern mental action, it is not based on vague abstractions about human nature. This is the rock upon which so many so called sciences have split. The laws of character, like those of chemistry, are to be learned by seeing the agent at work. They depend upon the closest observation of particulars. To know man, men, not man, must be the object of study. It has been well said, that those who know man very well, know little or nothing of men; that is, *Hudson's Lectures on Shakspeare. they understand the species, not the individual-can reason admirably about the generic qualities and universal attributes of humanity, but cannot rightly perceive or apprehend the qualities of actual men; and, on the other hand, we often find men who, knowing and caring little about abstractions and universals, are remarkably accurate in their judgments of men, and can almost always hit the individual between wind and water. The last is much the truest Ethologist of the two; but Ethology, while it siezes upon the fixed laws of mind, at the same grasp gathers in the minutest experience of every individual. The true scope of science ranges from the minutest glance to the loftiest and broadest comprehension. To use a figure of Gilfillan's, Science can carve out a head from a cherry-stone, and a Colossus from a mountain. It begins with the simplest; with the individual; but soon, by judicious generalization, it adapts its conclusions to the variety of complex cases. Hence, by observing closely the relations of friendship in him who claims that sacred relation, and when the observation is easy and clear, we are enabled to classify certain emotions which, under similar circumstances, may always indicate correspondent results, even in those with whom we are not familiar. It depends upon the scholars and thinkers of our time to illustrate this science of Ethology, and rescue its study from the vagaries of popular discussion. There is no subject which has received so much informal and unsystematic discussion, as this of Character, with such unsatisfactory results. Pope may sing of the proper study of mankind, Foster may write essays on Decision of Character, and ethical writers, from Aristotle down to Mackintosh, may unfold all the law of morality; yet, unless some precision is given by the limitations of science, there will always remain the same lamentable incongruity among writers, and the basis of character will forever remain insecure and sand-like. In every other department we can lay our hands on certain truths-fixed-axiomatic. In conchology, meteorology, ornithology, and the like, we can point out certain invariable phenomena; but in the great science of human character there is only uncertainty, doubt and darkness. Why is it? has been, it seems, in this science, not only a wrong choice of method, but a failure skillfully to apply the right method. There Ah! but it is said, for centuries ingenious minds have been engaged in constructing a science of human character, and have not succeeded; because, human conduct being variable, VOL. 1-4. |