Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

falsehood; Geometry from avarice (!); Physics from a vain curiosity; all-including Morality itself from human pride."

No sane man could seriously maintain such arguments, although this was not the first time they had found utterance. St. Aubain, in a now forgotten work, called "Traité de l'Opinion," which Rousseau had studied in his youth, advanced most of the objections to be found in this "Discours." In fact skepticism had infested every department of human inquiry, until at last men began to doubt whether all inquiry were not useless. Rousseau's paradox, therefore, although suggested by Diderot, was the legitimate product of the epoch, and hence its success.

Not merely as a protest against the science and literature of the age did this "Discours" startle France; there were tones in it of a higher strain; there were sentences of serious application. Philosophers were on thrones, were at court, were caressed in salons. Princes prided themselves on their patronage of literature. Rousseau, instead of swelling the list of eulogists who proclaimed such liberality as the great virtue of an enlightened monarch, boldly declared this patronage was adroit tyranny.

Extravagant as the leading idea of this Discourse unquestionably is, it was surpassed in his next work. Men are prone to believe in their own lies when they find others credulous, and the idea which Rousseau took up as a paradox to display his ingenuity produced so great a sensation that he began to believe he had discovered a truth. He had accidentally lighted upon a mine, and now dug vigorously onwards in search of the ore. His own unhappy life, his own unsociable temper, his consciousness of genius, and irritated self-love, all fitted him for the task of declaiming against unjust social distinctions; and while thus indulging in his vengeance, he was earning his laurels. He spat upon the society wherein he felt his false position, and the world applauded that indulgence of his wrath!

[ocr errors]

The Academy of Dijon having gained celebrity by its foolish program, grew bolder, and proposed this momentous question: What is the origin of the inequality among men, and is it sanctioned by the law of nature?" Rousseau's famous Discours >>>> did not obtain the prize, but it created a greater sensation than any prize essay ever written. It is the paradox of the first "Discours," but more seriously meditated, more powerfully stated. It is less of a caprice, and more of a conviction. It is a sombre, vehement protest against civilization, a protest in favor of the poor

against the rich, of the oppressed and degraded Many against the polished, vicious Few. This very seriousness, I suppose, prevented the prize being awarded to the " Discours." Certain it is, that it alarmed the ingenious, frivolous society of France, and that its full success was not obtained till some years later, when the times had grown more serious.

L'homme qui médité est un animal dépravé. That is the keystone of the arch; and it is nothing more than the aphoristic formula of his first «< Discours." He admits that inequalities, physical as well as mental, exist, but these inequalities he attributes to the corrosive influence of civilization, with its luxuries, its subtleties, and its vices. In a state of nature, men's bodies, being equally exercised, become equally vigorous, and the healthy body forms the healthy mind. He paints in glowing colors the ideal state of savage life, of men without language, except a few expressive sounds such as animals employ to articulate their wants, wandering amidst boundless forests, chasing their game, reposing under trees, unperverted by the illimitable desires and unsatisfied passions of civilized men, knowing none of the subtleties of affection, taking a wife to satisfy a passing desire, and heedless of his offspring, brave, simple, truthful, and free.

"Not with blinded eyesight poring over miserable books!"

That is what man was, and what he is you are called upon to compare with that primeval state.

it, appear.

So far it is only another statement of his former idea, but, as he proceeds, the dangerous consequences, rigorously deduced from Men were born equal — equal in health, in strength, in virtue, in property. The earth belonged to all, and to none. Society began with the spoliation of the many, in favor of the few; it, and its laws, are the consecration of that spoliation.

"The first man who, having inclosed a piece of land, took it into his head to say, 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. What crimes, what battles, what murders, and what horrible miseries, would he have spared the human race, who should have torn down the fence, and exclaimed: 'Beware how you listen to this impostor; you are lost if you forget that the fruits belong to all, and the earth to no one!""

This bold attack upon the very nature of property so startled the age, that even Voltaire called it the philosophy of a black

It was

guard who counseled the poor to plunder the rich. passing beyond the limits of permissible paradox, and was becoming alarming. Rousseau was serious. He met the objection naturally made, that a man having built a wall by his own labor was entitled to its benefit, by asking, "Who gave you the right to build it? How can you pretend to be repaid for a labor we, the masses, never imposed upon you? The unanimous consent of the whole human race was necessary before you could appropriate from the common funds more than was necessary for your own subsistence. You are rich! but we suffer. Your wealth is our poverty. In vain you appeal to laws. What are laws but the adroit selfishness of men, who framed maxims for the preservation of their possessions? Property is a spoliation; laws may secure, but they cannot justify it."

This is no longer a mere audacious paradox; it is an unhappy error. It is not a caprice of speculative ingenuity, it is a vigorously deduced conclusion. It has not only logical consistency, but is strengthened by popular feeling. It is a doctrine which will fructify in Revolutions! To those who are in misery and want, it comes like a revelation of truth, responding to their sense of social injustice. To those who roll in wealth, it comes like a spectre to scare them from their possessions,- a spectre they cannot exorcise. It is a doctrine, it is a conviction, and is backed by millions, stung by a sense of injustice! Attempt not to answer it with phrases about "sacred rights of property," "security of order," "well-being of the state," and so forth; it tells you plainly that these rights are un-sacred, and that this well-being of a state is the pampered indulgence of a few, wrung from the sufferings of millions!

That bold idea once thrown upon the world, the world « " will not willingly let die." France suffered from it. We, in our wealthy England, also suffer from it. In thousands of heads and hearts it works, forming the basis of a political gospel. Those who most revolt against it, find it difficult to answer. It never will be answered so long as social science continues in the hands of metaphysicians. Happily, their reign is drawing to a close!

From the "Life of Robespierre.»

J

JUSTUS VON LIEBIG

(1803-1873)

USTUS VON LIEBIG, one of the greatest chemists of the nineteenth century, was born May 12th, 1803, at Darmstadt, Ger

many, where his father was << a dry salter" and dealer in dye stuffs. The chemical experiments made by his father in attempting to purify his dyes are thought to have given the first impulse to the scientific genius of the son. It is said that even as a boy Justus Liebig acquired through persistent experimenting a greater knowledge of chemistry than that of "many full-grown professors of the science.» Under the impulse thus gained, he studied at Bonn and Erlangen, graduating from the latter university in 1822 and studying afterwards under Gay-Lussac at Paris. On his return to Germany he became professor of Chemistry in the University of Giessen, where he remained for twenty-five years. During this time he published his "Letters on Chemistry" and other works of the highest merit, which made him a world-wide reputation. In 1852 he left Giessen for the University of Munich, where he served as professor of Chemistry until his death, April 18th, 1873. In 1845 he had been "ennobled as "Freiherr von Liebig," and it is to this that he owes the title of "Baron," by which he is frequently called. His work practically founded the science of organic chemistry, out of which some of the greatest discoveries of the age have developed. His "Letters on Chemistry are admirable in their methods of expression. He has a faculty many scientific investigators lack,-that of making himself so clearly intelligible that he transmits to his readers no small part of his own enthusiasm for his subject.

IN

GOLDMAKERS AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE

N ALL metals, according to the creed of the alchemists, there is contained a principle which gives to them the metallic character. This is the mercury of the adepts. To increase the proportion of this principle in the baser metals is to ennoble them. If we extract this metallic principle from any body or metal, if we increase its power by refining it, and thus produce the quintessence of all metallicity (to coin a word), we have the stone

which, when made to act on base or unripe metals, matures and ennobles them. The mode of action of the philosopher's stone was considered by many as analogous to that of a ferment. "Does not yeast change the juice of plants or a solution of sugar by a new arrangement of their particles into the youth-giving and invigorating water of life? (Aqua vitæ, alcohol.) Does it not effect the expulsion of all impurities? Does not a ferment (sour dough) convert flour into nourishing bread?" (George Rippel, fifteenth century.)

In its utmost perfection, as the "universale, >> one part, according to Roger Bacon, sufficed to transmute a million partsaccording to Raymond Lully, ten billions of parts-of a base metal into gold. According to Basil Valentine, the power of the philosopher's stone extends only to seventy parts; and John Price, the last alchemist and goldmaker of the eighteenth century, describes it as transmuting only from thirty to sixty parts of base metal.

For the preparation of the philosopher's stone the first requisite was the raw material, the Adamic earth, virgin earth, which is indeed to be found everywhere, but its discovery is dependent on certain conditions known to the initiated alone. "When we have once obtained this," says Isaacus Hollandus, "the preparation of the stone is a labor fit only for women, or child's play. From the materies prima, cruda or remota, the philosopher obtains first the mercury of the adepts, which differs from ordinary quicksilver, and is the quintessence, the first condition of the creation or procreation of all metals. To this is added philosophical gold, and the mixture is left for a long time in an incubatory or brooding furnace, which must have the form of an egg. There is thus obtained a black substance, the raven's head, or caput corvi, which, after long exposure to heat, is converted into a white body. This is the white swan, cygnus albus. After this has been long and more fiercely heated, it becomes yellow, and finally bright red, and now the great work is consummated."

Other accounts of the process for preparing the philosopher's stone are rendered, by their being mixed up with mystical views, yet darker and more mysterious. The custom, too, prevalent in those ages, of regulating divisions of time by the hours of prayer, passed, during the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, into the laboratories of the alchemists; and it is easy to perceive how, by degrees the success of the operation came to be regarded as

« AnteriorContinuar »