marriage of Sir Gawain, and others, are too long for insertion, we must be content with one or two shorter specimens. Thus, being wearyed with delayes, And there he dyed without releeffe. Thus every day I fast and pray, Now, gentle heardsman, aske no more, Show me the right and readye way. Now, goe thy wayes, and God before! Goldsmith's "Edwin and Emma," as also Percy's "Friar of Orders Gray," are adaptations and enlargements of this ballad. For others of equal and superior power, we must refer the reader to the "Reliques of Ancient Poetry," to Ellis's "Metrical Romances, Mallet's "Northern Antiquities." and similar works bearing on our subject. From the study of early ballad poetry, we see on what foundation the elaborate system of modern poetry is built, and learn anew the lesson we so often unlearn,-that noble endings must have small beginnings; that PERFECTION is no sudden blaze caught from heaven and flashed upon earth by the sudden inspiration of transcendant genius-but is rather the outgrowth of centuries of toil; the jubilant freedom earned after many cycles of trembling endeavours, and of faltering hopes. We learn, also, of what stuff our ancestors were made; and, spite of all our self-love, and all our exaltation of our highly flattered and most dearly beloved nineteenth century, we are forced to admit that they were (are we?) good men and true. We learn what things were held most in repute, what virtues were most virtuous, and what morals most approved; and, spite of the coarseness of their language, and the undisguised nakedness of all their thoughts, whether good or bad, we are fain to admit that the old English oak was as strong, as beautiful, as useful, and as durable, before French polish was laid upon its surface, as it is now, or perhaps ever will be. We learn that ladies were skilled in surgery. Now, if we were American born, it would be easy to earn laurels by using this fact as the key-note of an impassioned ecstasy on woman's rights; but being this side of the land of dollars, we say what we believe, and that is, that in binding up wounds, and administering medicines our dead and gone Crystabelles, Annettes, and Rosalindes, did well. Now, surgery is a science excelled by no other, demanding nerve, strong intellect, and the unwearied devotion of a lifetime. Therefore, now though women could do well, men can do, because they can endure, much better. It is woman's duty to make a heaven of her home. Hospital practice is no mission of hers. When men are so scarce that none can be found to amputate a limb, or trepan a broken crown, then it will be woman's turn, but not till then. We learn that ghosts were an institution, and had privileges allowed them quite equal to the requirements of so respectable a body, if, indeed, such a spiritual corporation can be called by so earthly a name. A landscape gardener can tell you how to produce a delicate tint on the rose; a student of acoustics can explain the philosophy of echoes; a geologist will account for subterranean fires, and volcanic eruptions; an entomologist will tell how industrious spiders weave their curtained tapestries on moonlit nights; but if you go back to the fifteenth century and the troubadours, you will find that Venus, hurrying barefoot through the woods, gave from her bleeding feet its crimson blush to the rose. When the nymph pined for love, her voice was left on earth, and still, under the name of Echo, she fondly repeats each earth-born accent that she hears. When the heavens thundered, angels were fighting in the upper air; and when, on a rimy morning, the silken gossamer hung like a veil over tree, and leaf, and flower-it was the dwarfs and fairies, who had been busy decorating the groves for midnight revelries. Now, all this was very pretty, although, of course, you will say, very foolish. Decidedly prettier than table turning,-not nearly so foolish as spirit rapping. Does it not seem that we move in a circle? Fashions, fears, and prejudices, ride their hobbies, and pay their pennies, and have their jaunt on the great merry-go-round in Vanity Fair; and another crowd waits for its turn, and another, and another, and though the weather may change, the round is kept up, and all have their rides, and pay their debts. The philosophy of history is poetry; the philosophy of poetry is love; and this is what we learn pre-eminently from the study of poetry in history,-that men have always loved true nobleness, true chivalry, true endeavour, and true intent; that faults are to be contrasted with virtues, and not erected above them; that the past and the present are not chasmed asunder, but are parts of one harmonious whole, which futurity shall complete; and that the ages die not, but live in each other, the darkness of to-day blending with the light of yesterday, the picture ever growing more beautiful under the Master's hand. We learn that life will be beautiful if it is true; and that simple wants and simple pleasures go ever with noble sympathies and holy resolves. F. G. 59 The Inquirer. QUESTIONS TO WHICH ANSWERS ARE SOLICITED. 64. Will some friend be good enough to inform me, through the British Controversialist, the origin of the title "Pope?" and how it came to be applied to the head of the R.Catholic Church? S. 65. Perhaps one of your readers will give me a philosophical solution of the supposed supernatural appearance observable in graveyards, which tend so much to confirm the credulous in their superstition?-G. 66. Kaleidoscope.-From what is the term kaleidoscope derived? Who was the inventor, and what is the object of this instrument?—G. H. 67. Having frequently, in the course of my reading, met with a mathematical statement to the following effect, viz:"That two lines may be drawn from any two points, in such a manner, as that the more they are produced, they shall approach nearer and nearer; and yet, though produced ad infinitum, they shall never meet." I would esteem it a great favour if one of your learned correspondents could help me to a solution of the difficulty. I have no doubt whatever that such is the fact; but, as yet, to me it belongs to the domains of the incomprehensible.-ECLECTIO. me 68. Will any of your readers skilled in meteorology kindly inform through the medium of your pages, of a good work on that science, with its price? Should treatises on the subject happen to be very costly, perhaps there may be a small work explanatory of the action of barometers, anemometers, thermometers, &c., which would answer my purpose almost as well. An early reply will confer an obligation on T. P. T. 69. Can any reader of the British Controversialist furnish information as to the process or art of exhibiting "Dissolving Views," or refer me to any literary work on the subject?G. A. H. E. con. 70. Dr. Spring, in his "Obligations of the World to the Bible," has this passage, in speaking of the Hebrew; he says:-The whole language is tained in the Bible, and no other book contains in it an entire language. Dr. Clarke, in his "Commentary," has this passage::-"As the English Bible does not contain the whole of the English language, so the Hebrew Bible does not contain the whole of the Hebrew language." Will any of your correspondents give me some light on this subject? -P. M. L. 71. To have a thorough knowledge of the Greek Testament, is it necessary to learn Latin?-P. M. L. 72. Are there any elementary books in Greek on the same principle as Akin's elementary books in French? or what s the easiest or best Greek book for a learner to get?-P. M. L. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS. 58. Profane History and the Miracles of the New Testament.-We do not find fault with "A Doubter" for doubting, since Christianity appeals to our reason as well as to our faith, but we cannot account for the supposition that his question, which is treated by Dr. Lardner in eleven octavo volumes, can be answered in the Inquirer's columns of the Controversialist. If he has read Lardner's Credibility," Paley's" Evidences," Adams and Campbell on "Miracles," Leslie, Douglas, and others, and is not convinced how can he expect satisfaction from an answer in these pages? If he has not read such works, it is rather too early to proclaim his doubts. We assume, again, that he opposes "history" to the "New Testament" inadvertently; for there is no history better attested than the four gospels. It would have saved some trouble if he had defined the kind of history from which he is desirous to obtain "corroborative" evidence. If he questions the credibility of inspired writers, we assume he would not thank us for a reference to the ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius. He seems to put faith in pagan historians, and to please him, we will say a few words on this class of writers. Why does the Doubter" think that such a man as Tacitus is more entitled to confidence than the evangelists? He was not an eye-witness of what occurred in Judea the scene of the miracles which are cited-whereas the evangelists were eye-witnesses. Tacitus, then, could only have written from hearsay. The reports must have come through either the friendly, the unfriendly, or the indifferent, to Christianity. The report of the first would have been no better to "A Doubter" than what he already discredits; that of the second would have been objectionable to a candid and honest doubter; and of the third, worthless to an intelligent doubter. Why, then, does the inquirer look to secondhand statements for testimony to the miracles of Christ? Tacitus was, in point of time, nearest to the age of miracles, and is undoubtedly one of the best of pagan historians. Assuming that he had undertaken to give to the citizens of Rome an account of Christianity, as he did an account of the Jewish religion, what "corroboration" Tacitus would have furnished, may be judged from the fact, that he gravely tells his countrymen that the Jews were in the habit of worshipping the effigy of an ass! This ridiculous slander is repeated by Plutarch. Tacitus, again, describes Christianity as "a pernicious superstition." Does "Doubter" find anything in the New Testament of which this description is a corroboration"? Pliny came into closer contact with Christians than any other pagan whose works are extant. He wrote more than 240 letters to the emperor Trajan, and in two of them finds fault with Christians for worshipping a man 66 not recognized in Roman polytheism, and for emptying pagan temples in Asia Minor; for being more moral, more honest, more faithful, and kinderhearted than heathens were in general. A system founded on the miracles of Christ, and which made its advocates what Pliny describes them to have been, Tacitus pronounces to be "a pernicious superstition." Cannot the "Doubter" extend his doubts a little? Why, again, does he prefer the pagan to the Christian historian? It cannot be on the ground that the former would have discarded the miraculous; for the history of Livy abounds in prodigies. Porphyry-a mortal enemy to Christianity-wrote a miraculous history of Pythagoras; and Tacitus relates two miraculous cures wrought by Vespasian. Speaking of these cures, Tacitus observes" They who were present relate them, even at this time, when there is nothing to be gained by lying." This remark is worth the consideration of the "Doubter." The same historian records the punishment of Christians as "a set of men of a new and magical superstition." These men, wherever they went, called upon all to believe in their " magical superstition." 66 They had "nothing to gain by lying." They had everything to dread from persisting to maintain the truth of the miracles, or the magic, as Tacitus chose to describe them. A little doubt" would have saved their lives, and have placed them in the same position of ease and safety in which the question we are trying to answer was penned and sent off to the Controversialist. Pliny attests the honesty and fidelity of this "set of men." Could honest men have promulgated falsehood? If they were under a delusion, the man, who informs us that the Jews worshipped an ass, and that Christianity was a "pernicious superstition," was not the man to prove that they were deluded. If they were deluded, it is because that they were superstitious and credulous. This must not, however, be assumed, but proved; and proved not from their detractor, Tacitus, |