Year: 1863




Cardinal WtagSaaA. GsaCEneIy ctul2Vefed
the inaugural lecture Of the 84th session
Of the Southampton Englsnd) Polytech-
mic Institution, his subject being Self.
CultuEc." Alter some introductory re-
marks, In which he said his object was 70
show the advantages Of self-culture net
only to those who wished to be great, but
to ell, even though they might continue
In their present sphere Of life, and point
ing out that the true, real education was
that performed within, and which none
but the individual can perform for himself,
the lecturer spoke of the cultivation of
the intellectual powers. Alter Noticing
the 6rst process of thought, which was
little more than observation, be said:


, The moment favorite thought began
to haunt the mind, when it returned again
with new vigor and the mind took pleas
uTe in dwelling upon it, it should be
checked without q moments hesitation
and cut away and man having acquired
a control over his thoughts, over bis mind,
would at once determine that the idea
should not dwell in his mind. Otherwise
it might be the beginning Of thousand
monomanias. Indulgence in such ideas
was the way in which they became fixed
In the mind. They returned agAin and
again. He was not speaking Of moral
consequences, but of intellectual conse.
quences. There was not more serious
impediment to selfculture than that of
allowing dominant thought to assume
proportion to the rest Of the faculties
which was not in proportion to its own
value. OF this there was no question,
and he might lay it down as certain in
tellectual results and say never allow what
might be considered q favorite idea, or
fancy, or imagining to dwell for any
length of time in the mind. 1t had been
said, and he believed, with truth, that
there was hardly mind so strong as not
to have within it the possible seed of in
sanity, and that seed might be found in
this fOrm-a single idea, without any rea-
son to account for its taking possession Of
the mind, might 60 on developing until it
became sort Of morbid feeling, resulting
in the manner in which he had indicated.
There was third and greater application
Of the mental power. 1t consisted in not
merely beng able to arrest thought, to
dwell upon it, but in being able to study
the principles and earnest thoughts which
were within the mind-being able to hav e
the power Of directing all the energies of
the mind to their solution and explana-
ton, and so to treasure up within our
selves the principle drawn from sound and
solid reflection. lie would not go into
detail, but the application was this
There was nothing more common than
for persons to like to dispute-to discuss
subject, to provoke by the earnestness
with which they pursue q paradox and
answer every objection and difficulty
raised against them, and then say it is all
joke-it was done by way Of trying my
skill against yours. A man ought never
to take part which he did not believe.
Inward truthfulness was as necessary to
the formation Of a sound moral character
as was exterior truthfulness. He would
say, never maintain thing that you do
not believe-never dispute principle for
disputation's sake-never consider it a
mere recreation to be warning on the side
Of falsehood, or immortality, or anything
that is wrong. He knew one instance in
which the fondness for disputation and
discussion had led to the person who did
not believe in his cause bringing the other
over and converting him to falsehood.
Such a course of proceeding was serious
moral offence. That the training of the
mind must be by the individual was self.
evident. No two persons thought and felt
alike. He would illu,tra his meaning
by referring to . well known fact, al
though it might be regard ded as rather
commonplace. From the earliest ages
poets and agriculturists had considered
two trees as intimately united together
the elm and the vine; and those who had
visited the beautiful plains and valleys OF
Italy must have been struck by the loving
group and their verdure and fruitfulness.
The elm grew up . stately tree. The vine
crept up by its side, a miserable sapling,
without vigOr or strength, unable to sus-
tain itself The one tree lent strength,
the other gave beauty. They were born
together, their roots were mingled almost
inseparably beneath the soil, they lived
upon the same fOOd, they sucked up nour-
ishment from the same ground, they
drank the same dew and the same rains
from Heaven. And yet no skill, no pow
er could make them the same. The hus-
bandman might trim and prune, and en-
rich the soil as much as he pleased, but
he would never bring a single grape out
of the elm and never form q self-suStain.
inh stock for the vine. They received the
same nOurishment, but they created what
was given to them into different sub
stance. And so. two daughters growing
up together, two sons going to the same
college on the same day, would be as diff
ferent as possible from each other, and no
power of exterior culture would make
them the same. The aim ought to be not
to make them exactly alike, but to make
them both useful and good" The lecturer
then proceeded to the consideration Of
imagination and memory. In conclusion,
he observed: The result of all this train
ing of the intellect was the formation OF
character. A man ought not to be too
solicitOus about the formation of charac-
Ter. He could not form it. Character
must grow. 1t must be the result of ma
ny circumstances. If there was one thing
Of which men were more ambitious than
another it was what was commonly called
character is . man of character.
Now, what did that mean ? A man Of
irmness, q man of determination, man
who would carry through his projects
that was character the most envied.--
But experience had taught the truth-that
the frmness of small minds was obsuna-
cy, while the RrmneSs Of great minds was