The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1857-01-28
Meu of Action aud Men of Thought.

"Gh VI hCtiOH Huu Nen Oh hOuSuks
The world ia divided into two sorts of
men, those who think and those who act.
OF course, all men think, and all men act,
but some more of one than of the other, aud
hence The propTiety of dividing them into
two classes. Napoleon, for example, was
all able thinker, but he was man of action
10 much greater degree, and he may there
lore, be ranked among the last as contradis-
tnSulshed, from the first. Shakespeare was a
man of action to an extent that few poets
have been, but his career as dramatist has
oveTshadowed his other qualities, and he is
TO be considered consequently as a man of
thought. The men OF action, in word, are
those who carry out the thoughts of Them
selves or others; the men of thought are
those who think chiefly, and leave others 10
act The first control their own age, the last
generally The oges that follow. Alexander
the Great exercised more powerful and ex-
iensive influence, in his own time, than Az
istoile, his old master but Arisolle's works
have been influencing men, communities
and empires ever since. A man of action,
however grea!, is like stone, dropped
through vacuum, lha, leaves no percep ibe
trace OF its passage. A man of thought is
like a stone dropped into the water, which
sels ir motion circles that widen continually
and never seem to stop.
The men OF action are loo apt 10 under
value the men of thought. The ordinary
type of the former, in our day, is the active,
shatp.siahted, energetic man Of business,
who brings everything 10 the test of The
question, twill it pay?' The ordinary tyne
of The latter, is the talented clergyman, pro-
lessor, or author, who, generally, has no
great Gnack at what Is called "geliing along"
natural anlipalhy seems TO exist between
The Two classes. The first despises the last
for ignorance of business. The last looks
with contempetuous pity on the first, as
deficient in refinement aud culture. Yet
why should this aulagonism exist? Each
class is good in its own way, and each is
necessary 10 progress. If we had nobody
bu, buslliuS, eager, money making men of
action, there would be no intellectual, nor
social progress, and dead malerislism
would eat out the heart of society. If we
had only great preachers, profound profess
sors, or popular authors, things would soon
come 10 stop for the want of little practi-
cal utility. The two go together TO make
up the State. Marry ii dreamer, however
vast his genius, 10 dreamer like himself,
and their housekeeping is soon Sat skies and
sevens." But marry him to a thrifty, ener-
getic woman, with strong dash OF common
sense, and matters get on very differently.
II is mistake. also, IN men of action, or
men Of thought, to rank their speciality the
highest. Each class has mission TO per.
form; and each, therefore, is honorable in
its place and vocation. AS the material in
terests of society demand that we SHOULD
have thrifty mechanics, adventurous mer-
chants and enterprsins capitalists, so the
moral, social political and religious wants
of the race require teachers, statesmen, au-
ihors and c!ergymen. 1t is as invidious as
it is false, therefore, for one class TO say TO
another, in The spirit of The Pharisee, "s;and
aside, am hoier than thou" The presen,
wants of society call for the man of action
as fully as its future development calls for
the man Of thought. The vast and compli-
Gated machine of human affairs would come
10 dead lock without either. One wheel
is as necessary as the o'her, and as noble, il
there is any question of nobility At all. Let
each man fulfil his vocation, taking care to
perform his work fairly, and not TO be, as
many are, carricature of his class !; for the
man OF action should not degenerate INTO
mere miser, nor should the man OF thought
pass into crazy dreamer or ideaoisist.--
Phita. Ledger.