Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

the law of patronage, but a fundamental and destructive change in the British constitution.

We are members of the Church of Scotland, not merely from the influence of education and from habit, but also from a sincere conviction that it is in all respects the Church best adapted to the country and to the people of Scotland; above all, because we know that it has been the instrument, under Providence, by which the cause of morality and religion has been steadily and efficiently promoted; and because we believe that the eminent character which attaches to Scotland and to Scotchmen, is mainly attributable to the purity of the Church's doctrine, the zeal of her ministers, and the wisdom of her ecclesiastical polity. But we cannot forget that the prosperity and the glory of the Church has been advanced and matured under a system of government which it is the object of modern Churchmen to alter or to destroy. The law of patronage has ever formed a component part of the constitution

of that Church which we admire and reverence. We deprecate unnecessary change; and we refuse to yield to empty declamation, where there is no attempt to convince us by reasoning. Even if the demands of the present race of Churchmen were admittedly conducive to the welfare of the Establishment, and to the advancement of its influence and its usefulness, it is still possible that the prosperity or the agrandizement of the Church might be purchased at too high a price. But we record our opinions on this subject, chiefly because we are persuaded, that the law which the Church is now engaged in maintaining and defending, is unconstitutional and revolutionary in its tendency; subver. sive of the principles of a church establishment; ruinous to the character of the clergy, both individually and as a body; most pernicious in its influence on the habits and feelings of the people, whose interests it professes to advance; and, by necessary consequence, destructive of the national character.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

"And yet a righteous deed is done, And I shake off that weariest load; The thought of vengeance due to one

"Not soon shall Rome of freedom Who ne'er with truth or mercy

speak,

And scorn our distant German crown; But tell me why I feel so weak,

And why thy beauty wears a frown."

34.

glow'd.

42.

"Corroding grief and madd'ning shame

Are still the fiends that goad my life;

" Full soon thy weakness, King! will But 'twill not blot Crescentius' fame,

end,

And frowns are idle clouds to life;
But say, thou flattering amorous friend,
Did slain Crescentius leave a wife?"

35.

"The slave deserved nofondling smile,
His wife, be sure, was nought to me;
I let my squires their toil beguile
With favours due from such as she.

36.

"Why glarest thou thus with horrid eyes?

Nay, woman, would'st thou strike a king?

I cannot speak-my shout but sighsHelp-help-O! snakes my bosom wring."

37.

"So perish, tyrant! know that I Am wife to him so basely slain; To me 'twas only left to dieTo die, but not to die in vain.

If men record his hapless wife.

43.

"Lie still thou heap that wert a King, And yield thy signet gem to me; My cloak, like night, and Otho's ring,

Will soon have set the murderess free.

44.

"But free to what? to pass her days In some dark cell of cloister'd woe; To hate the sunshine's gladdening rays,

And long for death's releasing blow.

45.

"My Lords! the King for some two hours

Will rest, and all without may wait; This royal token shows my powers To pass at will through guards and gate."

ARCHÆUS.

DINNER REAL AND REPUTED.

GREAT misconceptions have always prevailed about the Roman dinner. Dinner [cana] was the only meal which the Romans as a nation took. It was no accident, but arose out of their whole social economy. This we shall show by running through the history of a Roman day. Ridentem dicere verum quid vetat? And the course of this review will expose one or two important truths in ancient Political Economy which have been wholly overlooked.

With the lark it was that the Roman rose. Not that the earliest lark rises so early in Latium as the earliest lark in England; that is, during summer: but then, on the other hand, neither does it ever rise so late. The Roman citizen was stirring with the dawn which, allowing for the shorter longestday and longer shortest-day of Rome, you may call about four in summerabout seven in winter. Why did he do this? Because he went to bed at a very early hour. But why did he do that? By backing in this way, we shall surely back into the very well of truth: always, if it is possible, let us have the pourquoi of the pourquoi. The Roman went to bed early for two special reasons. 1st, Because in Rome, which had been built for a martial destiny, every habit of life had reference to the usages of war.Every citizen, if he were not a mere proletarian animal kept at the public cost, held himself a sort of soldierelect: the more noble he was, the more was his liability to military service: in short, all Rome, and at all times, was consciously "in procinct."* Now it was a principle of ancient warfare, that every hour of daylight had a triple worth, if valued against hours of darkness. That was one reason-a reason suggested by the understanding. But there was a

second reason, far more remarkable; and this was a reason dictated by a blind necessity. Is is an important fact, that this planet on which we live, this little industrious earth of ours, has developed her wealth by slow

stages of increase. She was far from being the rich little globe in Cæsar's days that she is at present. The earth in our days is incalculably richer, as a whole, than in the time of Charlemagne: at that time she was richer, by many a million of acres, than in the era of Augustus. In that Augustan era we descry a clear belt of cultivation, averaging about 600 miles in depth, running in a ring fence about the Mediterranean. This belt, and no more, was in decent cultivation. Beyond that belt, there was only a wild Indian cultivation. At present what a difference! We have that very belt, but much richer, all things considered æquatis æquandis, than in the Roman era. The reader must not look to single cases, as that of Egypt or other parts of Africa, but take the whole collectively. On that scheme of valuation, we have the old Roman belt, the Mediterranean riband not much tarnished, and we have all the rest of Europe to boot-or, speaking in scholars' language, as a lucro ponamus. We say nothing of remoter gains. Such being the case, our mother, the earth, being (as a whole) so incomparably poorer, could not in the Pagan era support the expense of maintaining great empires in cold latitudes. Her purse would not reach that cost. Wherever she undertook in those early ages to rear man in great abundance, it must be where nature would consent to work in partnership with herself; where warmth was to be had for nothing; where clothes were not so entirely indispensable but that a ragged fellow might still keep himself warm; where slight shelter might serve; and where the soil, if not absolutely richer in reversionary wealth, was more easily cultured. Nature must come forward liberally, and take a number of shares in every new joint-stock concern before it could move. Man, therefore, went to bed early in those ages, simply because his worthy mother earth could not afford him candles. She, good old lady, (or good young lady, for geolo

* " In procinct." Milton's translation (somewhere in The Paradise Regained) of the technical phrase " in procinctu."

gists know not* whether she is in that stage of her progress which corresponds to grey hairs, or to infancy, orto "a certain age,"]-she, good lady, would certainly have shuddered to hear any of her nations asking for candles. "Candles!" She would have said, "Who ever heard of such a thing? and with so much excellent daylight running to waste, as I have provided gratis! What will the wretches want next?"

The daylight, furnished gratis, was certainly "neat," and "undeniable" in its quality, and quite sufficient for all purposes that were honest. Seneca, even in his own luxurious period, called those men "lucifuge," and by other ugly names, who lived chiefly by candle-light. None but rich and luxurious men, nay, even amongst these, none but idlers did live much by candle-light. An immense majority of men in Rome never lighted a candle, unless sometimes in the early dawn. And this custom of Rome was the custom also of all nations that lived round the great pond of the Mediterranean. In Athens, Egypt, Palestine, Asia Minor, every where, the ancients went to bed, like good boys, from seven to nine o'clock.* The Turks and other people, who have succeeded to the stations and the habits of the ancients, do so at this day.

The Roman, therefore, who saw no joke in sitting round a table in the

Old

dark, went off to bed as the darkness
began. Every body did so.
Numa Pompilius himself, was obliged
to trundle off in the dusk. Tarquin-
ius might be a very superb fellow;
but we doubt whether he ever saw a
farthing rushlight. And, though it
may be thought that plots and con-
spiracies would flourish in such a city
of darkness, it is to be considered,
that the conspirators themselves had
no more candles than honest men:
both parties were in the dark.

Being up then, and stirring not long after the lark, what mischief did the Roman go about first? Now-a-days, he would have taken a pipe or a cigar. But, alas for the ignorance of the poor heathen creatures! they had neither one nor the other. In this point, we must tax our mother earth with being really too stingy. In the case of the candles, we approve of her parsimony. Much mischief is brewed by candle-light. But, it was coming it too strong to allow no tobacco. Many a wild fellow in Rome, your Gracchi, Syllas, Catilines, would not have played "h- and Tommy in the way they did, if they could have soothed their angry stomachs with a cigar -a pipe has intercepted many an evil scheme. But the thing is past helping now. At Rome, you must do as "they does"at Rome. So, after shaving, (supposing the age of the Barbati to be passed)-what is the first business that our Roman will undertake? Forty to one he

* "Geologists know not." Observe, reader, we are not at all questioning the Scriptural Chronology of the earth as a habitation for man, for on the pre-human earth Scripture is silent: not upon the six thousand years does our doubt revolve, but upon a very different thing, viz. to what age in man these six thousand years correspond by analogy in a planet. In man the sixtieth part is a very venerable age. But as to a planet, as to our little earth, instead of arguing dotage, six thousand years may have scarcely carried her beyond babyhood. Some people think she is cutting her first teeth; some think her in her teens. But seriously it is a very interesting problem. Do the sixty centuries of our earth imply youth, maturity, or dotage?

† Every where the ancients went to bed, like good boys, from seven to nine o'clock.As we are perfectly serious, we must beg the reader, who fancies any joke in all this, to consider what an immense difference it must have made to the earth, considered as a steward of her own resources-whether great nations, in a period when their resources were so feebly developed, did, or did not, for many centuries, require candles; and, we may add, fire. The five heads of human expenditure are, -1, food; 2, Shelter; 3, Clothing; 4, Fuel; 5, Light. All were pitched on a lower scale in the Pagan era: and the two last were almost banished from ancient housekeeping. What a great relief this must have been to our good mother the earth! who, at first, was obliged to request of her children that they would settle round the Mediterranean. She could not even afford them water, unless they would come and fetch it themselves out of a common tank or cistern,

« VorigeDoorgaan »