The Warner weekly sun. (Warner, Brown Co., Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1885, 1885-03-27
MEN OF LETTERS AS PREACHERS.
The Habitual Tendency Of Certain Authors to
MOraliZe. "

liar character of its mOralists. In
former times the minister of religion
was usually the sole recognized nor
alist. Here and there scientific NOR
rlists have had considerable influence
upon the moral practice of small
groups of educated Lnen. Both these
classes of moralists we still have with
rs, although at present under an
eclipse. Neither the clergy nor those
whom they address are quite clear as
TO the bias of theological doctrine pre-
suppose in all mOralizing from the
pulpit. The scientific mOralist can
not directly address a public so enor-
nous, so ~ill-educated, so scant of leis-
ure, and so eager for excitement as
the public of modern Europe. Never
theless, mankind continue to have
an appetite for that moral exhOrtatiOn
which they denounce by rOte as dry
and insipid, while consuming it in
great quantities, and with little regard
TO quality. They have found new
preachers among the people who write
essays, novels, and poems, who have
long been accustomed to make re-
marks upon life and conduct, but have
been esteemed not very successful in
the COnduct of their own lives. BY
common consent these gentlemen have
been indicted into the vacant cure of
souls. The literary man has become
the one universal and impressive NOR
alist, so that it is well worth while to
trace the effect of literary modes of
thought upon ethics, as we'll as the
effect of constant ethical purpose up
On literature.
Our literary mOralists have naturally
impaired to modern morals a literary
tinge. The most fashionable virtues
are the virtues of the literary spirit.
Thus tolerance is pre.eminently a
literary virtue; and our age is very
tolerant, tolerant not only in the
domain OF thought, but also, if in a
less degree, in the domain of action.
Another literary virtue is humOr, a
quick and scornful perception of what
Is ugly, exaggerated, and insincere.
This virtue has passed from books into
our consCience, has made us feel the
vices that cling to Our very virtues,
and has made the best of us almost
weakly shy of avowing their own
goodness. The openness and lexi.
bility of mind, the d~elicacy in discri-
minating, the patience in hearing all
sides, the indulgent kindness in Judging
which, above all other good qualities,
complete a finished literary character,
can never indeed be of much account
in popular morality; but they are
of more account than they I'VE
were before. All this, of course, is
due to many causes, such as the social
changes of the last hundred years; but
it is in part due to the literary influence
upon conduct, the influence of such
writer's as Thackeray and Carlyle,
Victor Hugo and George Sand.
On the other hand, some of the most
notable weaknesses of our generation
are literary weaknesses. Morality as
taught by literary men has lost as
much iu detiniteness as it has gained
in expansion. Being practical, it
should speak f~orcibly, unless it speaks
clearly. Ii may speak clearly in one
or two ways. 1t may lay down. in dog
matte fashion a series of short, sharp
rules, apparently without vital con-
nection or ground in reason-rules
which are not to be questioned simply
because the q~uestioner will be pun
ished. Again, it may express the
net result of serious and scientific
thought about the universe and mans
place in it-that is to say, it may be
definite because il is philosophic. Now,
the literary moralist IS usually not
definite either in the one way or in the
other. His wisdom flashes out from
time tx time in brilliant intuitions, in
the intervals too often emitting no
thing but unsavory smoke. His
teaching is a series of acute obserya-
tions, searching parallels, or moving
pictures. Such teaching exactly suits
the palate of an age too critical for
dogma, too impatient for philosophy;
but it wants unity, it wants consist
ency, it wants force-wants very i'll
supplied by passion of feeling and
glow of imagination. So that when
we read the literary moralist for any
thing beyond literary pleasure we
commonly end in downright bewilder-
ment.
Thus every serious reader of Car
lyle's writings must be a good deal
perplexed by his presentation of
virtue, now as purity and now as
power. Is the great man always the
good manP In what sense can 1t be
honestly said hat might is rightp
Carlyle nowhere clearly answers these
embarrassing questions, or, at most,
gives us in equally positive terms two
answers which seem to contradict
apother, and are really very difficult
To harmonic. Turn and twist the
matter as we may, the ideas Of Calvin
are not the ideas of Goethe, nor can
the modern scholar lock upon this
wcrld with the eyes of one Of the apos.
ties. Carlyle would no doubt have ad-
mitted this; and yet he would have
gone on exhorting us to do the thing
Che most angrily and ~righteously de-