« VorigeDoorgaan »
tempts had been made to set me spying, after her, and that I might have yielded to them, but for my own lofty sense of being a victorious veteran, and the way in which I was conquered by her extraordinary beauty.
She seemed for a moment to doubt how far I should have touched that subject; and if I had only looked up she would have rung the bell decidedly. But I bowed, and kept down my eyelashes; which were grey now, and helped me much in paying innocent compliments to every kind of woman. Even in the bar of very first-rate public-houses have I been pressed to take, and not pay for, glasses even of ancient stingo, because of the way I have paid respects, and looked through my shadows afterwards. Therefore this young lady said, "I hardly know what to do or say. Mr. Llewellyn, it is a strange tale. Why should any one watch me?"
"That is more than I can say, my lady. I only know that the thing is done, and by a very wicked man indeed."
Don't tell me any more of it. What is the use of having money except for the people who want it? Mr. Llewellyn, you must try not to be offended."
I saw that there was something coming, but looked very grave about it. A man of my rank and mark must never be at all ready, and much less eager, to lay himself under any form of trifling obligation. And thoroughly as she had won me over, I tried very hard not to be offended, while she was going to a small black desk. If she had come thence with a guinea or two, my mind was made up to do nothing more than gracefully wave it back again, and show myself hurt at such ignorance of me. But now when she came with a £5 note (such as Sir Philip seemed to keep in stock), my duty to Bardie and Bunny rose as upright as could be before my eyes, and overpowered all selfish niceties. I would not make a fuss about it, lest I might hurt her feelings, but placed it in my pocket with a bow of of silent gratitude. Perhaps my face conveyed to her that it was not the money I cared for; only to do what was just and right, as any British sailor must when delicately handled. Also her confidence in me was so thoroughly sweet and delicate. that I felt the whole of my heart wrapped up in saving her from her enemies. We made no arrangements about it; but I went into her service bodily; being left to my own discretion, as seemed due to my skill and experience. I was to keep the ferry going because of the opportunities. as well as to lull suspicion, and always at dark I was bound to be (according to my own proposal) near the river front of the house, to watch against all wicked treachery. And especially if a spy of Chowne's should come sneaking and skulking there, whether in a boat or out of it, I gladly volunteered to thrash him within an inch of his foul base life. The bad man's name never passed between us; and indeed I may say that the lady forebore from committing herself against anybody, so that I was surprised to find such wit in one so youthful.
We settled between us that my duties were to begin that very day, and my salary of course to run, also how the lady was to let me know when wanted, and I to tell her when I discovered anything suspicious. And as I had been compelled to restore the Parson's gun to his gun-maker, Miss Cary led me to a place you might almost call an armoury, and bade me choose any piece I liked, and her own maid should place it where I could find it that same evening, as though it were to shoot wild
fowl for them.
But she advised me on no and sometimes an officer behind them. If account to have any talk with Nanette, or they should happen to come up the river, any servants of the household, whether or go ashore upon business here, you male or female, not only because of the need not- I mean, you will quite underwicked reports and cruel slanders prevail-stand that no harm whatever is intended ing, but also that it might not be known to me, and therefore that you may—you how I was to act in her interest. And see what I mean." then having ordered me a good hot dinner in the butler's pantry, as often was done for poor people, she let me go once, and then called me back, and said, "Oh, nothing; and then called me again, and said, looking steadily out of the window, "By the by, I have quite forgotten to say that there is a boat belonging to a ship commanded by a son of Sir Philip Bampfylde, a white boat, with three oars on each side,
"To be sure, to be sure, my lady. Of course, I may quit my duty so long as there is a man-of-war's boat in the river: even the boldest and worst of men would venture nothing against you then."
"Quite so," she replied, looking bravely round, with as much of pride in her bright blue eyes as of colour on her soft fresh cheeks. So I made my best bow and departed.
and the Russians followed a second and a third
A CHARACTERISTIC story of King Victor Em- | tested the strength of the walls next in 1700, manuel is related by M. d'Ideville, formerly French chargé d'affaires at Turin, in his diary now in course of publication in the Journal de Paris. The King, having received a letter from Napoleon III., in which the latter evoked certain promises he had made to him on a former occasion, was furious, and took the first opportunity of venting his anger on the Emperor's representative. At the next court ball he summoned Prince Latour d'Auvergne to his presence in a private room, and addressed him in these words. "After all, what is this Emperor of yours! the last comer among the European Sovereigns-an intruder and a parvenu. Let him remember what he is, and what I am I, the head of the first and oldest Royal dynasty that now reigns in Europe." Prince Latour listened to this outburst with as much calmness as he could command, and then observed, Sire, you will permit me not to have heard a single word that you have spoken." The King said nothing and turned away. In the course of the evening, however, he came again to the Prince, and tapping him familiarly on the shoulder, whispered in his ear with a smile, "You need not report our conversation of to-day to Paris, cher prince. Besides, you told me yourself that you did not
Ir seems that if German military men have their Kriegs-Spiel, French authors have what we may call their Romans-Spiel. A sale is announced as about to take place in Paris, of the puppets or marionettes which the late M. Ponson du Terrail, the well-known romance writer, made use of when employed in composing the voluminous feuilletons for which he was so celebrated. These puppets, which represent the various characters of the author's different novels, are small dolls about one foot high; their faces were carved expressly for M. du Terrail's use by M. Dollégus, a Swiss artist. These marionettes are divided into groups, each group bearing the name of the story in which the personages composing it played a part. For his great in length at least-work of "Rocambole" the author had no fewer than 282 puppets. It should perhaps be mentioned that this THE Russian Government has, after a long last work fills nearly a score of closely printed hesitation decided finally to dismantle the for- volumes. M. Ponson du Terrail at one time tress of Riga on account of its strategically un-contributed simultaneously five distinct novels favourable situation, and to convert it into an to the feuilletons of five distinct journals in open town. The fortifications have long been Paris; and it is not to be wondered at that he out of repair. The works were begun in 1650, was driven to the use of mechanical contrivances and completed in 1708, standing several sieges in order to avoid confusing his plots. It is said while in progress. The Russians first besieged that M. Paul Féval and M. Victorien Sardou the city in 1656, the Saxon and Polish armies employ the same plan.
hear what I said."
Pall Mall Gazette.
BY THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.
From The Contemporary Review. the denial - this is a kind of blunder in ON HIBERNICISMS IN PHILOSOPHY. which our Irish friends have many success
ful rivals. Among these rivals none, as it
seems to me, are more successful than Miss EDGEWORTH, in her entertaining philosophers, and especially metaphysi“Essay on Irish Bulls,” observes that “it cians. To the illustration of this — 1 fear has never yet been decided what it is that somewbat irreverent proposition this constitutes a bull.”. It appears, however, paper will be devoted. from the context that the definition she
Let me say, in the first place, that there means is not the definition of a bull, are sayings which at first sight may appear but the definition of that kind of bull to involve a bull, but which in reality do which is supposed to be especially Irish. not. For example, Sir John Herschel, in And in this contention I think she proves one of his popular lectures on science, tells that the confusions of thought and lan- us that “light, although the cause of viguage which constitute a bull can be pro- sion, is in itself invisible.” This is no duced abundantly from the writings of mere paradox invented to attract attenEnglish poets, statesmen, and philoso- tion, and to fix it on the explanation which pbers. I am happy to observe that no is to follow. It is, indeed, an apparent Scotch example has been produced by this paradox, but only because the literal facts ingenious and charming authoress. Never- are not commonly apprehended. Light is a theless, candour obliges me to confess that word which means several different things. quite lately I heard a Scotch young lady First, and perhaps primarily, it signifies the of my acquaintance (who, however, has sensation of vision. Secondly, it means some English blood) in answer to the the (once) unknown external cause of that question, “Do you remember Donald Fer- sensation. The first of these two meanguson?.” make the following discriminat- ings is regarded by Locke (I think erroing reply : “ No; I recollect his face, but I neously) as the proper meaning of the don't recollect him by name.” Probably word. But the second is unquestionably this is pretty nearly a perfect specimen. the idea which is uppermost in the comHere is another which Miss Edgeworth mon understanding of the term. We talk tells us was particularly admired by Lord of the light coming to us from one direcOrford: "I hate that woman,” said a gen- tion or another — from one body or antleman looking at one who had been his other - meaning, of course, not our sensanurse; “I hate that woman, for she tion of light (which cannot come to us changed me at nurse.” In the same essay from anywhere), but the agency, whatever we are told of an Irishman who accosted it may be, which produces that sensation an acquaintance thus: “When first I saw in us. But neither do these two meanings you, I thought it was you; but now I see exhaust all that is now meant by light. In it's your brother;” and of a petition which neither of these two meanings would there was addressed to a lady in Ireland whom be any sense in saying that “light is in Miss Edgeworth knew, which began, “That itself invisible.” For if by light is meant your poor petitioner is now lying dead in a the sensation, the saying wonld be nonditch."
sense; and if by light were meant the imNow, I am disposed to think that Miss mediate cause of vision, or the precise Edgeworth has done injustice to her coun- agency which produces it, then the saying try, when she disputes whether there is would be untrue. The thing which causes anything peculiar in Irish bulls. There is vision, or which, more correctly speaking, a neatness, completeness, and perspicuity is the object of vision, is not only visible, of confusion in an Irish bull which is inim- but it is the only thing in the world which itable and unapproachable, and which con- is visible. Light, in this sense, is the stitutes at once its humour and its inno- thing and the one only thing which the
The bulls of other nations are human eye is made to see. But there is a comparatively clumsy; the confusions of third meaning in which Sir J. Herschel's thought which they involve are as com- assertion is strictly true. We now know plete, without being as apparent – having what light iz “in itself” – that is to say, all the absurdity of the Irish bull without we know the nature and constitution of it, its fun. But the essence of a bull — the not in terms of the sensation it gives to us, contradiction in terms, the assertion of but in terms of a wholly different order of something which is nevertheless denied in conception. First, we know that it is a the very terms of the assertion, or con-motion ; secondly, we know that it is a versely, the denial of something which is motion of a particular kind; and, thirdly, nevertheless asserted in the very terms of I we know that it is that motion in a medi
um having peculiar properties. Provision- it, and then to deny its conceivability, is a ally, and for want of a better, this medium bull. If the word or the phrase employed to has been called the "luminiferous ether." express it, is a word or a phrase representAnd it is of light in this sense that Sir J. ing an idea, then it is absurd to deny the Herschel speaks when he says that it is in- existence of that idea; and if the word or visible. It is now nearly seventy years phrase represents no idea, then it is equalsince Dr. Thomas Young startled and ly absurd to use it at all, and to make it amused the scientific world by announcing the subject of either affirmation or denial. his belief that this luminiferous ether "pervades the substance of all material bodies with little or no resistance, -as freely perhaps as the wind passes through a grove of trees." But when this ether is not agitated, it is invisible. Nay, more even when it is agitated, the movements of it are invisible, except when they come to us in a straight line, either directly from a luminous body, or indirectly by reflection from some other. In short, it may be sad that the luminiferous ether is like a vast ocean, which is never seen except where its waves break in surf. When these facts are apprehended, we see at once that Herschel's assertion of the invisibility of light, so far from being a bull—that is, a confounding of ideas is a clearing up of our conceptions. If there is any apparent confusion in that assertion, it is not due to any confusion of ideas, but, on the contrary, it is due to a nicety of discrimination which the weakness of ordinary language fails to indicate.
But this case is carefully to be distinguished from another, with which it may easily be confounded. The necessities of language may compel us to place in momentary collocation, for the purpose of denial, two ideas which negative each other, and which thus make nonsense; the very object of the collocation being to show that such is the result. For example: "We cannot conceive any boundary to Space." Here, at first sight, it might appear as if we first speak of a conception, and then deny its conceivability. but this is not so. We have a distinct conception of a boundary, and a distinct conception of Space, and what we deny is that the idea of a boundary can be applied to the idea of Space, because the very conception of a boundary involves the conception of an outside as well as of an inside; and where there is an outside there must be space. Whatever, therefore, a boundary may be boundary of, it cannot be a boundary of Space.
In contrast with this, which illustrates one of the great aims and objects of philosophy, let us look at some of the many cases in which language is abused to cover contradictory propositions, or to cheat the mind into a semblance of ideas when there
To begin with—and to begin with a most distinguished country-man of my own, Sir William Hamilton-is not the very phrase," the Unconditioned," in itself The" is the definite article, and applicable only to things or ideas capable of definition. But nothing is capable of definition which has no conditions. The negation of conditions is the negation of existence, as alone conceivable by man. The Unconditioned" is, therefore, simply nonsense - that is to say, a word pretending to have a meaning, but having
Here, therefore, there is no confusion of thought in first describing an attempt ed combination of ideas, and then denying that this attempted combination can be made successfully - that is, with sense.
But what are we to say of the second of the three great metaphysical discoveries which Mr. Mill has just extolled as the great triumphs of Bishop Berkeley's philosophy, namely, the "non-existence of abstract ideas?" It is not pretended that this phrase is in itself meaningless. It is not pretended that it involves an attempt to combine two ideas, the one of which excludes the other. On the contrary, the phrase is used over and over again, as having a definite meaning, which the mind can handle, examine, and analyze, by resolving it into the elements of which it is composed. But an idea cannot be proved to be non-existent by being proved to be composite. For, just as the most solid and stable forms of matter in
In saying this I hope I am not committing another blunder, which is very com
-the blunder of denying the exist-physical nature are not elementary sub
ence of some particular idea, which is nevertheless described and denoted by a name. We read often nowadays of such and such an idea being "unthinkable." If it be unthinkable, it had better also be considered as unspeakable. To speak of
stances, but combinations of them, so many of the most real and serviceable conceptions of the mind are structures built out
The Fortnightly Review, November 1, 1871, Berkeley's Life and Writings."
of the rudimentary elements of thought. indefinite number of individual objects, The Irishman who complained that he had and with these properties it is associated been changed at nurse is clear-headed, in a peculiarly close and intimate manner." compared with the philosopher who takes Well, to say that a word is "a mark" for up an abstract idea, examines it, describes an idea, is equivalent I suppose to saying it, and then denies its existence. And the that it means the idea. It appears then, absurdity of this blunder is made, if possi- that these general names mean, or conble, more apparent, by the obvious impos- note," or are "a mark for," the properties, sibility of conducting the argument against or some of the properties, which are comthe existence of abstract ideas, without mon to many individuals. But what are perpetually making use of them in the properties? and especially what are comvery terms of the argument itself. Ab- mon properties? Is not this essentially an stract ideas are employed to give witness abstract idea? Mr. Mill indeed asserts against themselves. They are summoned that every "class name " calls up the idea into the witness-box, examined, and urged (image) of some individual as well as the to confess, like the poor Irishman, that special properties which it "marks." But "they lie dead in a ditch." Mr. Mill pro- he admits that in this idea the common fesses to "explain the psychological ma- properties of the class are made "artifichinery by which general names do their cially prominent;" and that all others may work without the help of general ideas," be unattended to, and thus "thrown into which seems to me very like explaining the shade." And so, the whole argument how mere words, which are denied their comes, after all, to be not a denial of the appropriate meaning, "do the work" of existence of abstract ideas, but an account ideas which are denied their appropriate of their origin and a definition of their name. How there could be any "help" in meaning. Of course, it may be perfectly general ideas, if they don't exist, I can't good sense to argue that the vulgar unconceive. And how general names can do derstanding of a word is an erroneous any "work" in the operations of mind if one, and to put a better defined one in its they don't indicate general ideas, seems stead. But even in this point of view, equally hard to understand. And how Mr. Mill's definition seems to cast no new "general ideas" can be thus spoken of, light whatever on the common understandand argued about at all, if no such con- ing of the term, which is in close accordceptions can be formed, is the greatest ance with the etymological meaning of wonder of all. For here we have got "abstract." The idea of properties which general names which do not mean general are drawn forth from a group of others, ideas, but nevertheless do the same more or less completely separated from them, "work;" and we have got general ideas and brought into such mental prominence which would be very "helpful" if they as that all others are out of focus - cast existed, but then they don't. The only into the shade and practically out of mind solution of this puzzle would be, that the whole discussion is one like some others which Mr. Mill himself has elsewhere successfully exposed a logomachy-in which words are used without any meaning whatever, and solemn affirmations and denials are made all about nothing at all. But Mr. Mill seeing the (at least) apparent puzzie, offers a solution which deprives us even of this escape. He says, "the solution of this, as of so many difficulties, lies in the connotation of general names," and he lays especial stress on the point, that these "general names" are "not (like a proper name) mere words devoid of meaning." "General names," then, are not mere words without any signification. They have a meaning, and yet they do not mean general ideas. What then do they mean?
this seems pretty much what everybody understands by an abstract idea. To analyze an idea and to trace its component parts is a legitimate operation. But to conceive it, describe it, define it, and then affirm it to be non-existent, is very like a bull.
There is another very similar process of metaphysical analysis which also passes readily into like confusions, and that is the process by which we trace the means through which particular ideas are arrived at. A brilliant example of the legitimate application of this process is the reasoning by which Bishop Berkeley has proved that the eye does not directly see that which we call distance, and that distance is an idea arrived at by the experience of other sensations, interpreting those of sight. The great opponent of the bishop, on this point, is the brush-turkey, which certainly
Mr. Mill's explanation is that a general name "is a mark for the properties or sees distance the moment it is hatched, some of the properties which belong to an and without any experience at all. But