Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-06-07
"Pagan Eloquence,, Again.

recent editorial In THE STAR has been made
as viii be seen In another column, the subject
OF comment by correspondents. Our PROPOSE
ton was that no rhetoric can give attractions
to view of death which looks upon the grave
as the end Of man, the scene of his wreck, the
elimination Of tragedy, and that there is no
other such dampener upon eloqnence as death
thus viewed. The thought was. of course, sug-
gested by the published funeral Grafton deliv-
cred by Colonel Ingerson. This gentleman is
an accomplished speaker. Some of bis political
efforts are masterpieces. He knows what to
say and how to say 1t. But when he comes to
discuss death. 50 far as he treats it from ma
terialistic standpoint, his eloquence fails him.
His only words which furnish the sympathetic
consolation to weeping kindred of which one
OF our correspondents speak, are those In which
he seems to suggest hope Of future life, a hope
apparently forbidden by the general tone of the
grafton. IL Is not, however, necessary to our
purpose to inquire too closely whether refer
enceS to death as a ORGANIZES Sleep" as con-
dftion characterized by ''Silence and pathetic
dust" as the "wreck that must mark the
end OF each and all" whose horrors NAV
be m1ttgated by the suddenness and unex-
pectedness OF Its occurrence, as tragedy
sad and deep and dark" are consistent one
with the other, or consistent, taken collective
", with the hope which sees star, or the lis
ten1ng love which hears the rustic OF wing
1t Is evident that emitting the faint suggestions
OF lie beyond the grave If they are to be so
CONSTRUED In connection with the context, the
oratlon Is cold, comfOrtleSS and hopeless, and
Iully Justlnes our original proposition. The
correspondent who pronounces our remarks H.
logical and uncharitable, on the ground that we
assume incorrectly that Col. Ingerson has no
pehel WhafeVer In future life, himself as
sumes too much, and In the very act OF accusing
Is guilty OF the sins which he accuses. With the
minute details OF Col. Ingersolls belief or disbe-
Lief, we have nothing to do. His grafton fails
almost completely to present those views, based
on belief In a future life, which alone can
make funereal eloquence attractive, and conse
qUently as whole it Is disheartening. The
fact that dim suggestion of q different view
OF death Is the only consolatory ray of light
amid the prevailing gloom of the Grafton, Is a
substantiatfon rather than disproval Of the
point that we have made. Our correspondent,
HKnow-NOthing, who seems also to imagine
nothing, cannot conceive that all the friends OF
any man should die at once, holds, consequent
ly, that no mans deeds can perish with him,
and believes our whole argument so tainted by
this defect as to be worthless. Though ones
friends follow him to the grave In succession,
rather than altogether, 1t does not affect the
his memory and influence have only the life OF
the reflected rays OF the sun that has SET
Those who have heard Of the flood, described In
profane as wen as sacred history, the destruc-
ton Of Herculaneum and Pompefi, and the
great plague In London, will find no difficulty,
however, In imagining case where q mans
light disappears without this lingering sunset.
Another correspondent substantially comedies
what we asserted, but questions the foundation
of the strong, Christian faith which throws a
glory over death. The controversy suggested
Is as Old as Christianity and space viii not per-
NIT its re-argument In this paper. 1t remains,
after all has been sa1d that II men go utterly to
the worms after death 1--WE can only groan at
the fate which gives us over like beasts, to an
Inhalation and corruption, but denies us the
beasts happiness OF living only for the hour by
making us conscious Of our doom, or by mock
ing us with delusive hopes"