Изображения страниц
[ocr errors]


WESTMINSTER REVIEW, October, 1869. (Scott's Republication, New York,

140 Fulton-street.)-1. The Quakers. 2. The Poems and Prose Remains of Arthur Hugh Clough. 3. Water Supply of London. 4. Sunday Liberty. 5. The Afghan Tribes on our Trans-Indus Frontier. 6. The Natural History of Morals. 7. The Albert Life Insurance Company. 8. Compulsory Education.

9. Prostitution; its Sanitary Superintendence by the State. EDINBURGH REVIEW, October, 1869. (Scott's Republication, New York, 140

Fulton-street, N. Y.) 1. The Ecumenical Council. 2. Freshfield's Travels in the Caucasus. 3. The Duc d'Aumale's Lives of the Condés. 4. Thornton on Labor. 5. Count Bismarck. 6. Robinson's Parks and Gardens of Paris. 7. Fergusson on Tree and Serpent Worship. 8. Diaries

of Henry Crabb Robinson. 9. Indian Judges, British and Native. 10. The Victorial of Don Pedro

Nino. 11. Mill on the Subjection of Women. The eleventh article is an ample (though it might have been ampler) refutation of Mr. Mills's fallacious book, The Subjection of Women. That Mr. Mills's work is one-sided, overdrawing the subjection of women, and overlooking the immense “subjection of men,” both in the battle of history and in the marital relation, is clearly and conclusively shown. That volume, we think, possesses slight value in the discussion.

The equality of men and women, as maintained by Mills, is shown to be unreal. “If they are precisely the same kind of beings with no differences except those which are physical, then we allow without a moment's hesitation that women are the natural inferiors of men. Equality must embrace the whole being; it cannot be taken as belonging only to a part of it. And woman is confessedly and unmistakably man's inferior in one part of her being; therefore, unless she is as unmistakably his superior in another, she can have no claim to consider herself his equal. Now it cannot be asserted for an instant that she is notably his superior in intellect; all that the boldest theorizer ever dreams of asserting is, that she is equal with him in that particular, while she is manifestly not equal to him in bodily strength and personal courage. Thus in every way in which we can put the comparison, so long as we examine the two as competitors for one prize, her inferiority is marked and undeniable.” The writer might just as easily have shown man's greater strength of intellect in every department of great thought as his greater strength of body. Divide all the great productions of human intellect into three grades of high, higher, highest, and the feminine productions will be a minority in the first, a rarity in the second, a nonexistence in the third. The highest score, respectively, of mathematicians, poets, orators, historians, painters, architects, generals, and statesmen, we venture to say were all males. Beyond all reasonable question, then, to the male belongs the greater strength of intellect as clearly as the greater strength of body.

[ocr errors]

But is strength the only excellence? If men's advantage is strength, woman's is beauty, and all its powerful cognates; and it it be asked which is the superior excellence, strength or beauty, we reply that they are as incommensurable as a rod and a pound. Each excellence as exemplified in man and woman works for each sex a thousand reciprocal superiorities in turn. If woman is maritally a slave, so is man, perhaps, much more a slave. The duties of his family mastership often render him immensely the more worn and weary of the two. Take our high civilization and compare the life-task of a New York merchant with that of his fashionable wife!

And as for the proud dominion which, in its turn, feminine beauty overrides man, take the following case. We are conversing, in a New York watering-place, with a California lady who has read Mill, and is declaiming against the subjection of women. We reply: Madam, you are here living in a magnificent edifice built, owned, and managed exclusively by men, and yet your expenses being paid from a man's toils, you live a queen. When you depart, a carriage built by men and driven by men will convey you, with the most delicate care and reverence, to the depot. From the depot, designed by male brains, and built by hard male hands, you will be most respectfully transferred to the rail-car. Rail-car and railroad are built exclusively by male brain and muscle. While riding in it you are still a queen. Every voice softens in addressing you, and no hand dare touch you but with reverence. By car and by steamer, in the same queenly style, you enter San Francisco, a city built by men. In this queenly superiority you permanently reign through life; it is an organic reality, an imperative law laid upon subjected man by the power of Christianity and our modern civilization. For all this you repay men by simply being what you are, a beauty and a civilization to the race. Such is the subjection of men.

As to married woman's competence to enter into professional competition with man the negative argument is conclusive. As a woman, wife, and mother, she must pass through a variety of weakening periods that, for the twenty years that form the central period of man's manhood, entirely distance her in the race. A married woman can seldom be a permanent and successful general, statesman, or lawyer.

All this, however, fails to touch the question whether she ought not to possess some share of the power of choosing her own rulers, or whether government would not be better if the feminine side of the race had its proportion of power in molding

it. Woman may be unfit to rule, and yet be fit to select her rulers.

BRITISH QUARTERLY REVIEW, (October, 1869,)-1. National Education in Ire

land. 2. Crabb Robinson's Diary. 3. Nottingham. 4. Pre-Historic England. 5. The Works of Tourgeneff. 6. Thornton on Labor. 7. Skepticism in Excel. sis. 8. The Later Life of De Foe. 9. The Hundredth Number of the British

Quarterly." The fourth article in this quarterly (the organ of the English Independents) is an interesting dissertation of the ancient remains at Abury, and the celebrated Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain, En. gland. These are fragments of immense masonry of hitherto unknown origin and antiquity, but usually considered to be temples of the old Druids. By comparison, however, with similar remains in other parts of the world, it is conjectured that they are invested with a much higher antiquity. The masonry is of a somewhat advanced order; the stones are so immense as to presuppose gigantic strength or powerful machinery ; the stones are selected with great skill, and, huge as they are, drawn from some unknown place-certainly from no near quarry. There are indications that the builders were not idolators, but pure theists. The article closes as follows:

Even as we write, the announcement of the discovery, in the South of France, of the relics of a gigantic race of quasi buman beings, marked by osteological peculiarities hitherto undreamed of, has been made with such precision as to attract the attention of the French Institut, and M. Lartet has been commissioned to ascertain and report on the facts. There is much to lead to the belief that we are about to witness the opening of a hitherto unread chapter in the history of our predecessors in the dominion of the planet Earth. LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW, October, 1869. (Scott's Republication, New York,

140 Fulton-street.)-1. Islam. 2. Isaac Barrow. 3. Higher and Lower Animals. 4. The Byron Mystery. 5. The Water Supply of London. 6. Lord Lytton's Horace. 7. The Reconstruction of the Irish Church. 8. Sacerdotal

Celibacy. 9. The Past and the Future of Conservative Policy. The argument in defense of Byron against the charge of incest appears, we are glad to say, as it now stands, conclusive. The sole basis of the charge is Lady Byron's own statement, which is precisely neutralized by Lady Augusta Leigh's own accepted purity of character. Then as exculpatory facts we have, 1. Lady Byron's own statement, through her own authorized spokesmen, that incest was not among the charges she had to bring; 2. Lady Byron's long subsequent intimate friendship with Mrs. Leigh ; and, 3. Lady Byron's known peculiarity, in spite of her great active benevolence, of taking sudden and irrevocable piques against her former favorites.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]


German Reviews.
STUDIEN UND KRITIKEN. (Essays and Reviews.) 1870. Firyt Number.

Essays : 1. BEYSCHLAG, The “ Vision-Theory," and its most Recent Defense.
2. Kostlin, Religion and Morality in their Relation to Each Other. Thoughts
and Remarks : 1. CROPP, The Pericope on the Cananean Woman. 2. LAURENT,
The Results of Tischendorf's Imitation of the Alexandrine Manuscript of Cle-
ment of Rome. 3. FRIEDLANDER, A Picture of the Saviour from Constantino-
ple. Reviews : 1. MUCKE'S “Dogmatik des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts "
viewed by BECK. 2. KLOSTERMANN'S Untersuchungen zur alttestament.

Theologie, reviewed by Riebm. The reality of the resurrection of Christ has recently been, in Germany, the subject of an animated controversy. The rationalistic theologians, who deny the existence, and even the possi. bility, of miracles, have tried three different methods to explain away the reality of the resurrection of Christ. Either after the precedent of Reimarus, the author of the Wolfepbuttel Fragments, the whole narrative was declared to be a fraud, by means of a secret removal of the corpse by the disciples; or the death of Jesus was maintained to have been merely apparent, and his reappearance therefore an entirely natural event; or the reappearance of the risen Christ was finally explained as a vision, produced by the nervous excitement of the disciples. The first two of these explanations have found no keener opponent than Dr. Strauss, and have since had hardly any champion of note, and the present rationalists mostly adhere to the last-named method, the “vision theory.” The fullest defense which has yet been presented of it is to be found in a work by Dr. Carl Holsten, entitled Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus, (Rostock, 1868.) The author had, as long as seven years ago, defended this theory in an article of the “ Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie,(1861,) which was classed by the orthodox theologians among the best productions of the Tübingen school. He was, in particular, answered by Prof. Beyschlag, who undertook to prove that the Apostles knew very well how to distinguish between visionary and real appearances, and that therefore there was no reason to assume a self-delusion. Dr. Holsten, in the above-named work, defends his views against the replies, and develops them further. Prof. Beyschlag was thereby induced to go again over the whole ground, and after fully stating the theory of Dr. Holsten, to undertake anew an elaborate defense of the reality of the resurrection of Christ. The articles are to be continued and completed in the next number.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


Religion, Theology, and Biblical Literature. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. By J. P. LANGE, D.D., and Rev. F. R. FaY.

Translated from the German by J. F. HURST, D.D. With additions by P. SCHAFF, D.D., and Rev. M. B. RIDDLE. 8vo., pp. 455. New York: Charles

Scribner & Co. 1869. In the Book of Romans, as in Genesis, Dr. Lange comes forth himself, and Dr. Schaff seasonably assures us that both Dr. Hurst, the translator, and himself, the reviser, have taken special care to make Lange always speak intelligible sense. In this effort their success has been scarce complete. Were we to quote any paragreph from Dr. Hodge, it would at once reveal its own clear meaning. But there are plenty of passages of which we freely confess that, though we have performed a considerable amount of reading upon the subject they treat, we doubt what they mean, and which, if quoted, would be scarcely intelligible to our readers. Lange has succeeded well in the Introduction, which is comprehensive and erudite. We know nothing of the kind that surpasses it. The analysis of the book is complex and prolix. An analysis or scheme of a work fails of its object if it is not brief and lucid. We would as readily read the Epistle itself as Lange's summary of it. The textual criticisms are the most valuable parts of the volume. The Homiletical scrip-scraps are entirely out of place in the book. The Exegetical is generally valuable.

As to its theology, which, in a commentary on Romans, is of prime importance, it is exclusively and entirely Calvinistic. Arminian Dr. Hurst is allowed to do the machine work of translation and gathering the homiletical scraps; but he is safely put under keepers, and in the commentary itself no Arminian is allowed to say a word. To the eye of a well-read, clear-minded Arminian the imbecile and self-contradictory attempts to delineate the boundaries between the divine and human in the divine government appear worthy of compassion. Only one thing can be said in their favor; they acknowledge their own failure. But even here they make a sad mistake in not perceiving that the difficulty lies not in the thing, but in themselves, as stultified by a system. They admit that Calvinism is a contradiction, and yet claim that, contradictory or not, it is to be believed. But if Calvinism claims to be exempt from the law of non-contradiction, so may Arminianism or any other ism, and thus all reasoning is at an end. A contradiction asserts the prior of two propositions to be


« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »