language, to a highly developed government, to a common law, and to great national politics, and yet, stupendous as these things are, we know nevertheless that these have not been established by divine inspiration. We conclude Dr. Lieber's view with a single explanation, which he makes in answer to the objection, "why is it that so many tribes who have manifested those practical characteristics which have been mentioned, fall away and disappear?" This he will not attempt to explain. It can no more be explained by man here below, than we can learn why" annually innumerable peach blossoms should drop ere they swell into fruits, although it will not be denied that the evident destiny of the blossom is to change into a peach." Wherever civilization has been attained, it has started from the fundamental characteristics which exist

in all men. We here conclude Dr. Lieber's exposition and illustration of this recondite subject. He is some. what difficult to follow, not only because of the subtlety of his thought, but because of the involved and obscure character of his style; and on this account we have frequently given his thought in our own language. We hardly need say, that we agree with Dr. Lieber in the view which is presented in his lecture. What his Grace alleges of man's instinctive nature, is undeniably true; but he makes no account of that other and more characteristic part of man's nature, whence originate those practical characteristics from which civilization takes its origin. He denies to the savage these characteristics, or at least makes no account of them, unless they are quickened by instruction or inspiration from a source without and above them. Thus the savage, left to his unaided faculties, cannot attain to the simplest inventions or discoveries; can gain no knowledge of rude arts; cannot acquire the most indispensable knowledge. But this we do not believe. We agree with Dr. Lieber, and are convinced by the evidence which he presents from the manifestations of the unfortunate deaf and blind-evidence which seems clearly to sustain the view, that we are originally endowed with a capacity for language, and that man attains to it without any divine interposition. And so also it seems that every practical characteristic in which civilization takes its origin, manifests itself in the beginning. His Grace is ever

referring to a supposed primal revelation, from which all knowledge existing in the earlier ages of the world, was derived, or from which man's faculties received an impulse which has enabled him to make further attainments. This primal revelation is referred to in the traditions of almost every people. In our introductory remarks we endeavored to identify the truth which has been transmitted to us through tradition. But we are almost disposed to question whether it is wise to attempt to extract that truth which we have supposed to be contained in the ancient legends. Whoever has studied the nature of early legend knows that a people in whom fancy, feeling, and imagination are peculiarly active, usually seek only for that which will satisfy those tendencies of the mind, regardless of truth or error. Keeping this in view, we can easily apprehend how the poet, in primitive ages, would give loose rein to his fancy, and how the most extravagant tales would gain currency. The early myths of nations are not to be considered as having their origin in half truths, or in misreported matters of fact; they are the offspring solely of the fancy of the poets, who indulge in exaggerated conceptions to satisfy the appetite of the multitude. A historian, who has just finished an interesting history of Greece, has taken precisely this view of early legend, and he gives it as his opinion, that it is futile to attempt to apply any historical criticism to Grecian history beyond 776, B. C. This primal civilization can never be arrived at through authentic history, for we have no authentic history of those first ages. The farther we travel back into the remote past, "the more do we recede from the clear day of positive history, the deeper do we plunge into the unsteady twilight and gorgeous clouds of fancy and feeling." These legends, as we have already intimated, originated in an age which had no records, no philosophy, no criticism, no canon of belief. It is accordingly a great and magnificent fancy which has spread itself over the dawning of history and the beginning of human society on the earth. It is indeed a picture which fills the mind, and furnishes a broad back-ground from which history takes its start. But should we travel back into that past, we can never arrive at any thing corresponding to this fancied primal state. The vision would

eternally retreat from us. The assertion, then, is groundless, so far as it regards authentic history, that a primal revelation was in the beginning made to man of elementary knowledge, and of simple arts, to which he would never have attained by his unaided faculties. That man was originally endowed with capacities from which civilization must naturally spring, and that the growth of civilization was to be but the natural expansion and gratification of those faculties in a course of human progress, we firmly believe; and we deny that revelation,-necessary, indeed, to meet the wants of the religious nature,was any necessity either in the origin or progress of simple civilization.

D. S.

ART. III.

A Blind Minister.

The Autobiography of a Blind Minister, including Sketches of the men and events of his time. By Timothy Woodbridge, D. D. Boston: John P. Jewett and Company.

THERE is something in the life of every human being worthy of being recorded,-something to "point a moral and adorn a tale." There is nothing in which our literature is so deficient, as in well-written biographies. We have indeed histories of men distinguished for great virtues and great vices; but few in which a faithful picture of the excellences and defects of the same individual are presented. It is conceded that the best-written biography in the English language, is Boswell's Life of Dr. Johnson. Had the author of that remarkable book been endowed with greater talent, he would have probably made a failure, and instead of his incomparable history, he would have given us some such an account of Johnson as Milton has of Cicero. It was fortunate for the great moralist, that he had a friend who idolized him so profoundly as to record the most minute circumstances respecting him,

without a thought of the effect. The consequence is, that we are better acquainted with Dr. Samuel Johnson than with any other distinguished man of his time. Boswell wrote better than he knew. Had he been capable of analyzing the character of Johnson, or even of reflecting upon the effects on the minds of his readers of much that he recorded, he would probably have written nothing more than a panegyric which he would have lived long enough to see forgotten.

A man with fair talents, liberal culture, and great industry, may collect materials and compose a respectable history of an age or a nation, and yet be unable to write a faithful biography. He could narrate without prejudice the exploits of nations, and describe with equanimity the causes which combined to produce a great empire, or which contributed to its decay, and yet be unable calmly and dispassionately to narrate the events in the life of an individual. And the reason is obvious. The concern we feel in the affairs of a nation, even when it is our own, is often very remote, and always of a very general character. But it is impossible for us to contemplate the life of an individual without feeling an immediate and personal interest,—without being strongly biased either for or against him. Hence it is, that of all histories, biographies are the most unreliable.

But if it be so difficult for one man to write the life of another, the difficulties are increased tenfold when one attempts to write the record of his own life. Let any who feel interested in this subject read Foster's celebrated essay on one's writing his own biography. It is perhaps not impossible for a man with exalted talents and uncommon culture, to rise to a position where he can calmly survey his own thoughts and actions without being biased by selflove. But such instances are extremely rare; and undoubtedly the best way for a man to write a faithful history of himself, would be for him to keep a journal in which he should record every event, and, as far as possible, every thought which exerts any influence upon his actions, without attempting to explain or palliate them. Such a journal would doubtless be a faithful picture of his life, in all its lights and shades. But there are few persons keeping such a journal who would ever suffer it

to be read by any other eyes than their own; few who would not shrink from giving to the world a complete, unvarnished tale of all they have felt and done. And yet without this, a true autobiography is an impossibility. The most we can expect is, that one who undertakes to give the world the history of his life, shall be faithful in what he does record,-shall not attempt to draw inferences, or form opinions for his readers, but leave these things to those who can judge with impartiality.

The value of an autobiography depends not upon the variety of incident, nor always upon the greatness of its subject, but upon the fidelity with which the subject has employed the resources placed at his disposal for the formation of his character. The simple story of a peasant may teach a more important lesson than can be gleaned from the life of a hero of a hundred battle fields. Some one has said, that if we would understand correctly the character of an age, we must study the lives of the great men it has produced. If this be so, our own times bid fair to be understood by posterity; for we have the biographies and autobiographies of our great men, and also of a vast number of those who can lay no claims to greatness. Indeed, just now, there is a kind of a biographical mania. We have the lives of men of every calling. The mechanic, the trader, the physician, the clergyman, the showman-all are represented. We have the life of the poor and the life of the rich, and of those whose blessed state is neither poverty nor riches. There is no sphere, however humble or exalted, that has not its representative biography. It may be thought by some, that we have carried this matter rather too far, and that in our eagerness we have given to many a life, a brief notoriety, to which it was not fairly entitled, and so consumed a quantity of paper and ink which might have been more profitably employed.

Biographies and autobiographies, which in our times enjoy the greatest popularity, are indebted for their interest to some peculiar circumstance in the life of the subject, or class to which he may belong. They form the medium through which old abuses are assailed, and new theories are promulgated. Many a writer succeeds in this way in obtaining a consideration for his lucubrations, which they