he

the to judge between the influence of two poets, without ever settling in In our own mind what poetry is; how it is to be judged; and how its

new

effects are to be estimated." To have made the analogy complete, She should have said, "We cannot judge between the influence of two poets without settling in our own mind what influence is." Influence is felt, and does not depend for its power upon our en understanding how it is exerted. There is in this a confusion of dis ideas which runs all through his article. To say that we cannot appreciate the influence of a poet without first clearly defining what poetry is, its nature and office, is as absurd as to say we cannot be swayed by the eloquence of a speaker without understanding oratory; or be knocked down by a pugilist without being acquainted with the laws of boxing.

B

Does B. S. imagine that, without a correct theory, it would be impossible for a poor seamstress to feel the pathos of the "Song of a Shirt?" Will he deny that an "unfortunate" might recognize the tender humanity of the "Bridge of Sighs" without having read his article in the April number?

Passing from this, B. S. attacks H. G. for making his own experience a test of the influence of Tennyson and Longfellow. At first sight this may seem a fallacious ground upon which to rest our verdict; but it is not so. Do we not make ourselves the standard by which we judge of the feelings of others? We know only so much of our neighbour's heart as we have learnt from our own. That which moves us we expect to exert a corresponding power over our fellows.

If, therefore, we are conscious of a strengthening, elevating influence in a man's works, we have some reason for supposing a similar effect is produced upon all who read them. Of course, not absolutely the same; it will be modified or increased, according to the nature upon which it operates; but our hearts are, in their larger characteristics, so fashioned alike, that whatsoever is true, lovely, and of good report, reaches all who are not degraded or debased.

may

B. S. objects to the fact of Longfellow's influence being more extensive than that of Tennyson being urged as a point in his favour; and in opposing this argument, takes occasion to insinuate that it is only from want of intellect that any prefer the former. That he feels somewhat contemptuous towards those who do, be inferred from his query on page 395, where, speaking of a comparison between them, as to the way in which they have used their power, he asks "Can any one doubt what must and will be the unanimous verdict of every person competent to form an opinion?" We do not think that the number of persons influenced by either one or the other determines the question. We would not settle it by universal suffrage, - the same objection applying to that principle in things literary as in things political, that for the right use of it, education and taste are required, which all do not possess. But still we consider the fact that Longfellow does gain

3

a wider audience, even among those who have the requisites for a right judgment, ought to be allowed some weight. Besides, there is reason to doubt the healthiness of that which has nothing in common with the generality, and makes for itself, by its own exclusiveness, a narrow circle. And this we think to be the case, in some degree, with Tennyson's poetry.

66

66

But we pass on to notice a remark of B. S., in which he endeavours to ward off the argument which has been derived from the mystical, uncertain, indistinct teaching of his favourite poet, by declaring that The aim of a poet is not direct teaching; and the more closely he attempts this, the more prosaic he will be" (page 398). We partly agree with B. S. as regards the aim of most poets, but would remind him again that it is not the poet's aim, but his influence, we are discussing. He goes on, however, to say what we cannot agree with:- No great poet has ever professed to be catechist and lecturer to humanity.' Does B. S. mean to say that Isaiah, and the author of Job, were not great poets? Perhaps, in accordance with his definition on page 243, he will deny that their writings are poetry at all, as they are usually printed as prose. In a previous article we expressed ourselves in doubt as to the influence of "Maud," inasmuch as it contains fantastic passages, which, if accepted from so high a poet as his own convictions, would be very detrimental. To this, B. S. replies, "that it is the very nature of dramatic writing that we should find the truth and the conclusions in the result of the whole. Did Shakespeare believe with Hamlet, or not? Did he mean to say he would have killed Desdemona ?" &c. (page 400.) This, instead of being a conclusive answer, is an argument on our side. B. S. thinks we ought to find the truth in the result of the whole. Our objection to "Maud" was, that after a careful reading of the whole, it was difficult to know what Tennyson intended it to teach. No such difficulty exists with regard to the plays of Shakespeare or the poems of Milton, which B. S. refers to. In them it is apparent with whom the sympathy of the poet goes; but in Tennyson's "Maud" it is not. If B. S. had not felt this, he might have more effectually replied to our stricture by explaining that most perplexing poem, or he might have had recourse to his dictum,-The aim of the poet is not direct teaching." In this case it certainly is not.

We offer the above remarks in reply to the most important objections that have been brought forward to our view of the question. There are others which would have been noticed, if space permitted; but we hope enough has been said on both sides to place the question before the impartial reader, to whose judgment we confidently leave the decision.

EDMUND.

History.

WAS JOAN OF ARC AN IMPOSTOR?

AFFIRMATIVE REPLY.

CHALLAMEL, in his History of France, affirms that Joan of Arc was simply in the state of hallucination; or, in other words, a selfdeluded automaniac, acting upon the superstitious tendencies of friends and foes by the power of pretended spiritual communications, the offspring of her own delirious flights of fancy.

We refer to the closing sentences of our opening paper, (p. 328, vol. iii. New Series) as indicating the true position of this question. We there say, that "Joan of Arc claimed to have received authority and power from intercourse with a supernatural being she calls St. Michael, by which she achieved deeds of daring which any ordinary mortal, possessing equal energy of character, might have successfully accomplished without such supernatural assistance; while the existence and appearance of that personage is grave matter for doubt, in fact, is nowhere proven. Therefore, Joan of Arc was an impostor, or one who pretended to that which was not." In disproof of this position not one argument or valid reason has been assigned by our opponents, as we now proceed to show.

G. A. H. E., p. 330, gives, as the first test of her supernatural powers, the address she makes to Charles in his disguise; a feat, we imagine, readily performed by any one perfectly unskilled in court life. Where is the person of either sex in our own land, who would not readily recognize our beloved Queen and her worthy Consort in any assembly, however dressed, especially if that interview were chosen in the royal presence chamber? But G. A. H. E., on this occasion, puts into the lips of Joan this remarkable language:-" Most noble Lord Dauphin, I am Joan, the maid sent in behalf of God to aid you in your kingdom; and, by His command, I announce to you that you shall be crowned in the city of Rheims, and shall become His lieutenant in the kingdom of France." Again he says, p. 331, when she was examined by the doctors of theology, she addressed :-"I know neither A nor B, but I am commanded by my voices, in behalf of the King of Heaven, to raise the siege of Orleans, and to crown the dauphin at Rheims;" and after the course of events had shown the accomplishment of these promises, not by any superhuman means, but by the vigorous efforts of the soldiers, excited to emulate her bravery, all of which was perfectly natural and human, she is made (p. 332) to say, "I wish that the gentle king would allow me to return towards my father and mother, keep my flocks and herds as before, and do all things as I was wont to do."

them :

Upon these speeches of Joan our friend, G. A. H. E., assumes

that she was not an impostor. If such could be a truly valid reason, then success in the achievement of any bold promise of a rash nature, where the name of God is invoked by the villain or visionary, would be proof positive of merit, and entitle the cut-throat and the maniac to canonization. Beyond the speeches and the assumption, G. A. H. E. offers no argument. Lest the rhetoric with which these assumptions and speeches are placed before the reader should have magnified them beyond their real worth, we will offer a few remarks on the speeches, to show the fallacy of the assumption, and, by consequence, the unsound logic of our friendly opponent.

Joan, in these speeches, claimed-1st. To have been sent by God; 2ndly. To have been endowed with supernatural power; 3rdly. To prophecy that the dauphin should be crowned by herself in the city of Rheims; and, 4thly. She acknowledged the king's authority only to limit or continue the work to which, as she alleged, she had been commanded by God.

We may fairly assume that these speeches are really and truthfully Joan's own, as G. A. H. E., her advocate, affirms; to suppose otherwise, were to make that writer guilty of literary suicideguilty of putting into the lips of his heroine words she had not uttered, merely to make her the object of ridicule. Respecting her claim to the Divine mission, we have only her own assertion; if further evidence were in existence, surely G. A. H. E. would have produced it, in her support. Such being the case, that this claim rests on her unsupported assertion, we would inquire, Do the circumstances of the case render the direct interference of God, and the special revelation of that interference to an ignorant and obscure female, probable, necessary, or wise, as having relation to the moral government and providential arrangements of an all-wise, beneficent Deity? We submit this question seriously to the thoughtful reader, and would suggest, that to our mind it appears little short of the most daring impiety of which a human being can be guilty, to assume a Divine commission, or to affirm that another has rightly and truthfully assumed a Divine commission, under such questionable circumstances. It must be remembered, as S. F. T. has shown, p. 408, that all Europe was the theatre of impostures of a kindred nature for ages, to most of which none but candidates for Bethlehem Hospital would give the least credence. It is true

"God moves in a mysterious way

His wonders to perform;"

but all His works show unmistakeable signs of skill, wisdom, and adaptability of means to the required end. Let it not be objected that God has sent His servants in times past to work His wonders in the earth, and why not in the case of Joan? But in every truly Divine mission there is evidence above and beyond the mere assertion of the person sent. God is more apparent in the mission than the instrument chosen for the work; in fact, the finger of God is seen tracing upon the wall the work He is accomplishing, and the

person sent is entirely lost in the awful presence of the wonderful working of God himself. It matters not, as we shall subsequently see, to object that Joan believed herself to be the messenger of God; the facts adduced by our opponents conclusively prove the assumption of Joan to be daring blasphemy.

Let us be understood as speaking seriously. We feel strongly, and the importance of the principle involved should make every professing Christian to think, feel, and speak firmly, forcibly, and with great care. It is an awful thing to make God the foster-father to all our daring wishes and desires, or to approve of and idolize our fellow-mortal for daring to speak as God's mouthpiece, and act as His instrument irreverently and falsely.

She claimed supernatural powers. Her assertions surely can entitle her to no credence in this respect; the tendency of her daring, united to the superstitious influence her pretensions exercised in her favour, were the efficient causes of her success, and are to be accounted for by the well-recognized principles of psychological science, without supernatural assistance. She assumed to be sent by God, and endowed with supernatural powers for a specific object; the superstitious ignorance of the people induced them to receive her according to her pretensions; they believed in her mission; that belief created confidence, gave fresh vigour to their efforts; they expected success, and worked with hearty goodwill to achieve that success: the result was perfectly natural, and they succeeded. An entirely different series of circumstances resulted from her pretensions in their influence upon the minds of her foes in the former case, confidence of success was produced; but in the latter, superstitious dread of her supernatural power, and of her assumed Divine mission, induced timidity, fear, terror, weakness, and expected defeat. Hence defeat was realized to one party and success gained by the other the sole causes being, what is termed in military language the relative strength or weakness of the morale of the contending armies, superinduced by the pretensions of Joan. The whole, so far from being proof of supernatural power, is simply a psychological fact, the result of a natural law.

She is made by G. A. H. E. to say that she was commanded on behalf of the King of Heaven to crown the king at Rheims." This implies one of two things; either she was to crown the king with her own hands, or to cause him to be crowned as a result of her supernatural power. The king was crowned by the archbishop, therefore she did not crown the king with her own hands; and we have seen that nothing of a supernatural character was manifested in the successes of the French army, nor in the defeats of the English army; therefore the coronation of the king was a result of military success and State policy, neither of which were supernatural, however much they might have been brought about by Joan's conduct and assumptions. At the outset of her public career she alleges the command of Heaven to the work, and yet she is made