« AnteriorContinuar »
torical scepticism a little too far. It is undeniable, that the accounts of Josephus and Severus contradict each other; they cannot be reconciled, they cannot both be true; we must choose one and reject the other. We have before seen that Severus is by no means disinclined to modify facts in order to make them more striking illustrations of a favorite view, whether political or religious. We may entertain a high and sincere respect for the many excellent qualities which distinguished the character of Severus; but to give his statement the preference over that of Josephus, after having carefully examined into their respective claims for historical integrity, seems not justified by the facts in the case.
This brings us to the fourth point. Since Severus rejected, or at least did not adopt, the account of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as given by Josephus, the question arises, What authority did he follow? Bernays does not hesitate to decide the question in favor of Tacitus. We have before expressed our opinion that this part of the dissertation of Bernays is one of the most brilliant exhibitions of his remarkable power of combination, as well as of his knowledge of the language. But we frankly confess that the result of the latter is much more valuable than that of the former. We are not prepared to contradict the opinion of Bernays, that in this passage we have substantially the work of Tacitus; but we do say, that it appears to us in the highest degree improbable, and conflicting with all sound principles of criticism.
To say nothing of the remark, that in using Tacitus in this part of his work Severus was not obliged to turn to another volume, since it is known that before this time both works of Tacitus, the Annals and Histories, were collected into one whole of thirty books,* no one will deny that at the time of Severus the entire work of Tacitus was yet extant; but this concession neither proves that Tacitus's account of the fall of Jerusalem agreed with the one given by Severus, nor that the latter derived his from the former. It is very true that Tacitus betrays gross ignorance of Jewish history and antiquities,
*This remark, if it has any meaning at all, implies a strange conception of the form and arrangement of ancient manuscripts. We cannot for one moment suppose that Bernays intends to say that the whole work was contained in one volume.
which he might have corrected if he had so far overcome his contempt for a foreigner, a Jew, as to read the work of Josephus; but it does not follow that his account of the destruction of the temple must necessarily have differed from that of Josephus; although he may not have availed himself of the help of Josephus, he may have obtained the same facts, and essentially the same representation of the event, from other (Roman) sources, such as the work of Julianus, who was an actor in the drama; for it is a mere assumption of Bernays that the book of Julianus gave an account different from that of Josephus. Nothing is known of the book of Julianus, nor, of course, of its agreement with the supposed account of Tacitus. Finally Bernays's attempt of aiding his hypothesis by a restoration of the very language of Tacitus, is very clever (and the linguistic remarks are highly valuable), but it proves nothing. If Severus were known to have confined himself to the works of Tacitus as his authority, the theory of Bernays would considerably gain in probability. But the reverse is true, and Bernays himself enumerates a large number of passages pointing out the several classical writers who influenced Severus in each instance, and displaying, in doing so, a linguistic knowledge and tact truly admirable. The whole argument is a series of hypotheses, ingenious, indeed, but unsubstantial.
The last point on which Bernays impugns the veracity of Josephus relates to the repeated attempts to bring about an accommodation between the hostile parties. Josephus gives a very detailed account of his repeated efforts as a mediator, including the arguments which he employed towards his countrymen; he describes the circumstances under which the interviews took place, and the manner in which his suggestions were received. This precise and detailed account, taking into consideration the character of Josephus as an historian, is incompatible with the hypothesis that the account of the peace negotiations is from beginning to end a fabrication. Even if there were reason for supposing, which we are not inclined to grant, that Josephus, in imitation of other classical historians, composed a speech or speeches, never actually delivered, for the purpose of illustrating more vividly the main fact, it is
carrying scepticism to an unjustifiable length to question the main fact itself, namely, that Josephus, at the instance of Titus, made repeated offers of accommodation.
Endeavoring to make our view equally clear, we will follow Bernays in his summing up. It is true we have two accounts of a Roman council of war, which give, without material difference, the import of the views presented, but contradict each other in their statements as to the advocates of these views, and the decision arrived at. The full and circumstantial account, according to which Cæsar Titus is said to have advocated and carried the preservation of the temple, and the untoward destruction of it is ascribed to accident, was certainly composed by Josephus; but there is no evidence whatever to prove the correctness of the insinuations by which Bernays. undertakes to impugn his independence and integrity as an historian; on the contrary, the weight belonging to his testimony, as that of an intelligent and uncommonly well qualified eyewitness, and his character for historical truthfulness, remain unimpaired. The other account, not to be compared with the former in fulness and completeness, was written more than three hundred years after the occurrence, by Sulpicius Severus, undoubtedly a man of high culture and extensive information, and also of many noble qualities of mind and heart, but who had, in preparing his Chronicle, a very special object in view, and who in several instances, adduced by Bernays himself, had modified, not to say misrepresented, facts, so that they might square with his special object. Bernays himself justly says that no harm can come to us from this liberty taken by Severus, since we have the original of the Bible left. But is it safe to follow such a guide, altogether unsupported by other testimony, in the case of a work, or part of a work, which no longer exists, even if it were established that Severus used Tacitus as his source? The alleged connection between Severus and Tacitus is far from being rendered probable, still less proved. Under these circumstances, we may with as much propriety as old Scaurus ask, Whom do you believe, readers?
ART. III. THE MIND'S MAXIMUM.
1. Regulæ Economia qualis a Benedicto [Sancto] præscripta. The Rule of the Order of St. Benedict. In Mabillon's Annals. Paris. 1703.
2. The Constitutions and Declarations of the Company of Jesuits. [As Abridged and Illustrated in Bartoli's Life and Institution of St. Ignatius. Vol. III. Florence. 1831.]
3. Self-Formation; or the History of an Individual Mind. [By CAPEL LOFFT.] London. 1837.
4. Constitution and Plan of Education for Girard College for Orphans. By FRANCIS LIEBER. Philadelphia. 1834.
5. [Work and Play.] Oration before the Phi Beta Kappa, at Cambridge, Aug. 24, 1848. By HORACE BUSHnell.
6. Rules for Preserving the Health of the Soldier. Sanitary Commission's Report. No. 172. Printed, not Published. Washington, D. C. 1861.
E. E. Ibali.
WE are obliged to bring together authorities from a wide range, in directing the reader to such sources of information as are at hand regarding the most economical use of intellectual power. Few men who have to do work with their brains, even in the humbler processes of such labor, grow to be forty years old without regretting that they were not taught, twenty years before, those arrangements and devices for husbanding their intellectual faculty, and making it as useful to them as possible, which they have been obliged to learn for themselves, without system, and often in the wreck of failure. There is nothing so much neglected in the universities, where they attempt to teach almost everything, as the sciences of learning rapidly, and of using readily what one knows. The rules and constitutions of Benedictines and of Jesuits show how much and how little care the lawgivers of such orders of students devoted to systematizing study. These directions are almost always superficial and empirical, and, though by no means without value, nowhere rise to the dignity of a philosophical system of intellectual activity. In our own time, there has been a great deal said about "self-culture," which has professed to give instructions for intellectual culture. But a
treatise on self-culture generally ends, as Dr. Channing's does, in showing that it is very important to have the mind well trained, and in good working order, without telling how it is to be trained for keeping its working power at a maxiThere is also latent in most of such books the grave. error that a man cultivates his mind simply by reading, -a process which in fact often involves a loss of mental efficiency. This error has gone so far, that in common talk a man is praised for cultivating his mind simply in proportion as he reads books of any graver character than novels.
Such errors are not made in either of the other great lines of human activity. In the domain of bodily work, people understand that the training of the body is one thing, and the feeding it quite another. When that periodical cycle of interest in physical training comes round, through which just now we happen to be passing, nobody sends the young gymnast into a fruit-market, or to a table d'hôte, directing him to eat all he can, by way of educating his body. And the time has passed, in the other science of training the soul, when men thought it would attain its full power by rapt contemplation of God and heaven. It is only in the cultivation of the mind that there is tolerated a general gorging, each teacher encouraged to force down as much as he can, and the pupil then turned loose to bring his resources to bear as best he can, without a suggestion even as to methods of working power.
Yet the demand of the present time is especially for the utmost amount of intellectual work which can be extorted from educated men, and consequently for its utmost facility and method. There are not enough of them to do the world's work now; and the insufficient force of those who are detailed to this duty ought to husband their mental resources to the utmost, and to bring them to bear with the most recondite tactics. Let any professional man of to-day amuse himself for an hour with his grandfather's diary of his professional life. Let him compare the letter a month received and answered in the life of the last century, against his own file of one or two hundred received, indexed, and replied to within a like time. Let him compare the grandfather's annual ride