Produced by Emmy, Juliet Sutherland and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net THE CHAUTAUQUAN. _A MONTHLY MAGAZINE DEVOTED TO THE PROMOTION OF TRUE CULTURE. ORGAN OF THE CHAUTAUQUA LITERARY AND SCIENTIFIC CIRCLE._ VOL. V. FEBRUARY, 1885. No. 5. Officers of the Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle. _President_, Lewis Miller, Akron, Ohio. _Chancellor_, J. H. Vincent, D.D., New Haven, Conn. _Counselors_, The Rev. Lyman Abbott, D.D.; the Rev. J. M. Gibson, D.D.; Bishop H. W. Warren, D.D.; Prof. W. C. Wilkinson, D.D.; Edward Everett Hale. _Office Secretary_, Miss Kate F. Kimball, Plainfield, N. J. _General Secretary_, Albert M. Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa. Contents Transcriberâs Note: This table of contents of this periodical was created for the HTML version to aid the reader. REQUIRED READING FOR FEBRUARY How English Differs From Other Languages 247 Sunday Readings [_February 1_] 250 [_February 8_] 251 [_February 15_] 251 [_February 22_] 252 Home Studies in Chemistry and Physics Chemistry of Fire.âAncient Fancies 252 Temperance Teachings of Science: or, the Poison Problem Chapter V.âProhibition 255 Studies in Kitchen Science and Art V. Tea, Coffee and Chocolate 257 Household Beverages 260 Huxley on Science 261 The Circle of the Sciences 264 The Poetâs Vision 267 The Homelike House Chapter II.âThe Family Parlor 268 National Aid to Education 271 The Parsonâs Comforter 274 The Smithsonian Institution 275 Geography of the Heavens for February 279 New Orleans 280 The Upper Chautauqua 284 Outline of Required Readings, February, 1885 285 Programs for Local Circle Work 286 Local Circles 286 The C. L. S. C. Classes 291 Questions and Answers 293 The Chautauqua University Can Language Be Taught By Correspondence? 295 Editorâs Outlook 296 Editorâs Note-Book 299 C. L. S. C. Notes on Required Readings for February 301 Notes on Required Readings in âThe Chautauquanâ 302 Talk About Books 305 Special Notes 306 C. L. S. C. Graduates 306 REQUIRED READING FOR FEBRUARY. HOW ENGLISH DIFFERS FROM OTHER LANGUAGES. BY RICHARD GRANT WHITE. It has occurred to me that some readers of THE CHAUTAUQUAN may have been disappointed in these articles because in their judgment they have been thus far not sufficiently âpractical.â Many people, far too many, desire chiefly to find some short, straight road to knowledge. They like to have some man who is called an âauthorityâ upon a certain subject cut his knowledge up into small parcels or âchunksâ of convenient size, and arrange them with labels, alphabetically, in an article or a book, so that they maybe referred to at need, and followed like a recipe for making a pudding, and with as little thought. But there are no such recipes for acquiring real knowledge. In this way an acquaintance with facts may be made which, used blindly, may prove of some immediate service, and may not. Nothing, however, learned in this perfunctory way is worthy of the name of knowledge. For it is a barren process; it really teaches nothing; it profits nothing; it does nothing for the education of the person by whom it is adopted. Real knowledge comes only by a thoughtful learning of the relations of facts. True as to all subjects, this is eminently true as to language; because, language is eminently a subject of relations. There is hardly a word that we use which has not relations to other words, and other forms of speech; relations historical, spiritual, almost moral; to set forth which in detail would furnish occasion for a little essay. The mere learning to speak and to write a language is only a matter of memory and practice; nothing more. It is childâs work, and it is continually done, and is best done, by children. A man may speak and write English, French, German or Latin with unexceptionable correctness and fluency, and yet know no more about that language than a well instructed parrot would which had been taught to use all the words which he uses. His study would not be a study of language; and in that which he had painfully learned he might be easily and unconsciously surpassed by a child who had never studied at all. Now what I hope to do here is to help my readers to some knowledge of the English language, in so far as my own imperfect acquaintance with my mother tongue and its literature will enable me to do so. We have seen what English is, of what stuff it is made, how it came by its present compositeness of substance; how it became strong, and full, and flexible, and fervent; let us now look a little into its structure, _i. e._, the way in which it is put together, in doing which we shall see by comparison how it differs from other languages. This matter of structure, the formation of the sentence, is the distinctive trait of a language. Mere words are not the essential difference between languages. Many words are common (with slight phonetic variation) to all the languages of the Aryan or Indo-European stock, as we have already seen. Multitudes of words have been adopted into all the modern tongues from other languages ancient and modern, dead and living, as most of the readers of THE CHAUTAUQUAN know. The bulk of English dictionaries like Websterâs and Worcesterâs is composed of words which are of Latin, Greek, French or Italian origin, and which indeed are essentially the same words in all these languages; their unlikeness being merely a phonetic variation, mostly caused by difference in pronunciation, or change in termination. For example, _flower_ is in Latin _flos_ (genitive _floris_), in Italian _fiore_, in French _fleur_, in Spanish _flor_; each language having somewhat changed the sound of the word, according to rules or habits which are loosely called laws; but the word is in all essentially the same. A sentenceâmany sentencesâmight be written in English, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish and German, in which all the words of subject-matter (all but verbs like _have_ and _be_, and prepositions and conjunctions) should be essentially the same, and so like that an intelligent person with some faculty for language, and who understood any one of these languages, could apprehend the meaning of any one of the supposed sentences with little difficulty. And yet the sentences would be respectively English, Latin, French, and so forth. Why and how? It is to the reason of this, that is the why and the how of it, that we shall now give a little time and attention. The most important and significant distinction between languages is in their grammar; that is, in the structure of the sentence. In the languages mentioned above the greatest unlikeness in this respect is manifested in English, Latin and German, or to name them in their order of grammatical importance, Latin, German and English. The term âgrammarâ has two senses; one large and vague, and called by some âphilosophicalâ or âscientificâ (phrases commonly used with a deplorable union of pretension and looseness), which includes all that relates to the history, the substance and the structure of a language; the other much narrower and simpler; the sense implied when the phrases âgood grammarâ and âbad grammarâ are used. To this sense I shall here confine myself, and shall here repeat a definition of grammar which I have given before.[A] Grammar concerns the forms of words and their dependent relations in the sentence. To illustrate this: It is âbad grammar,â ludicrously, monstrously bad grammar, to say in Latin, _Nos habeo bonus mater_, and yet these Latin words, literally and simply translated in their order, mean, We have a good mother, which in English is perfectly âgood grammar.â In the Latin (to call it Latin) every word is wrong; in English every word is right. The reason of this is that in Latin words change their forms according to their relations, not according to their essential meaning. _Habeo_ means have; but it can not be used to express a plural having; that requires for _we_ (_nos_) the form _habemus_. _Bonus_ means good; but it can not be used to express the goodness of a feminine object, for which the form _bona_ is required. Yet further: Even _bona_ can not be used to qualify a noun which is the object of a verb, or, as we say, in the objective (or accusative) case, for which the form _bonam_ is required. _Mater_ means mother, but as the object of the verb _have_, _mater_ must change its form to _matrem_. By these required changes of form the Latin sentence becomes, _Nos habemus bonam matrem_, which is âgood grammar,â although poor Latin, but which, after all the changes, means simply, We have a good mother; nothing more nor less. Yet further: The sentence, as written above, although grammatical, is poor Latin because it is at variance with the habit, or as it is sometimes called the spirit, or even the genius, of the Latin language. In Latin the word _habemus_ (although like _habeo_ it means simply, have) is so positively and distinctively limited in use to the first person plural that the pronoun _nos_âweâis quite superfluous, and is never used unless with an emphatic purpose; _habemus_, without the _nos_, means, we have. Moreover it was the Latin habit of speech to place the object generally before the verb; and good Latin for, We have a good mother would be, _bonam matrem habemus_â_i. e._, A good mother we have, or rather (literally) Good mother we have for the Latin strangely has no articles, or none which correspond to our _an_ (_or a_) and _the_, and which may be translated by them. This illustration, brief and simple although it be, is sufficient, I think, to make the great and essential distinction between English and Latin, and measurably between English and all other modern civilized tongues, clear to the readers of these articles. The essential difference is not one of words but of the construction of the sentence. In Latin and other languages that construction depends not upon the thought and the meaning of the words, but upon the forms of the wordsâtheir inflections. Now the distinctive trait of English is that it is a language without inflectionsânot absolutely so, but so to all intents and purposes; and, being without inflections, it is therefore without grammar, which, as we have seen, concerns the forms of words and their dependent relations in the sentence. _Nos habeo bonus mater_ is bad grammar because the forms of the words are incorrect according to the usage of the Latin language. _Bonus_ means good; but for the expression of the quality good in its barest, simplest idea _bonus_ takes on five forms in Latin; _bonus_ for masculine goodness in the singular, _bona_ for feminine singular, _bonum_ for neuter singular; _boni_ masculine plural; _bonÃ¦_ feminine plural, _bona_ neuter plural. To be brief; for use in various relations, this word _bonus_ takes on no less than thirteen forms, of which more need not here be given. _Mater_âmotherâtakes on eight of these forms or inflections, which are called cases. But in English _good_ has but one form. Singular, plural, masculine, feminine, neuter, nominative, possessive, dative, objective, vocativeâin whichever of these senses the word which it qualifies is used it has but one formâ_good_. Thus it is with all English adjectives, and with articles (_an_ and _the_) which are a kind of adjective. In all other languages adjectives and articles have various forms adapted to the various numbers, genders, and cases of nouns. In English nouns have two cases (strictly but one, the nominative not being a true case), the second of which is the possessive: _e. g._, motherâs; and they have a singular and a plural form, _e. g._, _mother_, _mothers_. In other languages the verb is inflected into a multitude of forms, expressive of voice (active and passive), person, number and time of action. In English the variations of form in the verb are very few. There is no passive voice. The English has but one passive verb; the obsolete _hight_, which means, is called. As to time, there are only the forms of present and perfect, e. g., _love_ and _loved_; as to person and number, inflections only in the present tense, e. g., _love_, _lovest_, _loves_; and of these one, _lovest_, is obsolete, or very obsolescent. To these inflected forms there is to be added only the present or indefinite participle _loving_. Beyond this there are in English, by way of inflection, only the cases of the pronouns, e. g., _he_, _his_, _him_, _who_, _whose_, _whom_, _etc._ And it is here to be remarked that almost all the questions of âgood grammarâ and âbad grammarâ that arise in English relate to the use of pronouns. (For surely we may leave out of consideration here the difficulties of those who say _I see_ or _I seen him_, for _I saw him_, or _I have went_ for _I have gone_, and the like.) Here, therefore, we have set forth, although very succinctly, the distinctive grammatical position of the English language. That position is briefly this: In English words have (with the few exceptions mentioned above) but one form; and as grammar is concerned only with the formal relations of words in the sentence, English has no grammar. Among languages it is the grammarless tongue. Let us further illustrate this point by a brief consideration of a subject which is very perplexing to the learners of a foreign language, and which is not less so to the historical students of language in general; a subject which, I believe, has never been explained by the latter with any semblance of satisfactionâgender. All other languages are infested with gender; in English there is no such distinction in words as that of gender. English, it should be needless to say, has words to express difference of sex; that no language can fail to do, for failing in that, it would not communicate the facts and thoughts of every-day life. But grammatical gender has no relation to sex, no relation to the essential characteristics of things. Gender, grammatical gender, is an attribute of _words_. He creatures are male, she creatures female, and the words which are their names are generally (but not universally) masculine and feminine in all languages. Things neither male nor female are neuter, which means merely, neither. But this is not gender. Gender, as I have said before, is an attribute of words; of words only. For example, the Latin word _penna_âa pen, or quill, is feminine; in French the word _table_âtable, is also feminine. It is needless to say that there is no question as to the sex of a pen, or of a table; nor is there any quality in either of those objects which has a sexual trait or characteristic. In each case it is the word which is of the feminine gender; and in all, or almost all, languages but English all or almost all words are afflicted with this mysterious pest of gender. How annoying and perplexing it is, and how it complicates the use of language, and makes the acquisition of foreign languages difficult, no student needs be told. For it creates an ever present and far-reaching perplexity. It dominates the construction of the sentence and binds it up in bonds of iron. For every adjective, and in French and other languages having articles, every article which is applied to a noun must be of the gender of that noun. You can not say in Latin _bonus penna_, a good pen, without âbad grammar,â you must say _bona penna_. You can not say in French _un mauvais table_, a bad table, but must say _une mauvaise table_; nor _le table_, but _la table_âalthough both mean the table, nothing more nor less. The absurdity of this is made very apparent when a feminine word is applied to a male object. Thus _majestÃ©_âmajesty, is feminine; but when a king is called your majesty, the words _sa majestÃ©_ (her majesty) are used because the _word majesty_ is feminine; and instead of saying he (_il_) did thus or so, we must say she (_elle_) did it, although the she was a man; the reason being that the word _majestÃ©_ is feminine.[1] All this has been swept clean away in English, in which language there is no distinction of gender but only that of sex: male creatures, or those so personified, are masculine, female, feminine; those which have no sex are neuter; and there an end. English is eminently a language of common sense; and one marked evidence of this trait is its freeing itself entirely from the nuisance of grammatical gender along with other grammatical trammels.[2] It has _freed_ itself from those trammels; for at one time it was hampered by them sorely. Anglo-Saxon, or Old English, was an inflected speech, and was tied up in the bonds of gender and other grievous grammatical tetherings. This was long ago; but it was after Britain had become England, or Engle-land, the land of the English people and of English speech. When our English forefathers were little better than semi-savages, bloody, barbarous, heathen, worshiping Thor and Woden, and in a state of benighted ignorance of which it would be difficult for those of my readers who have not tried to pierce the darkness of that historical past to form even an approximate notionâat this time, and in this social and intellectual condition of the speakers of the English language, it was copiously provided with grammar. Even Greek had not much the better of it in this respect. It had not only forms for person and number, but gender forms, and cases galore.[3] Take, for example, a word which was English a thousand years ago, just as it is to-day, _man_. This simple word has undergone no change in all the thousand years, unless by losing a little breadth of sound; it having probably been pronounced _mahn_, of which sound the rustic _mon_ of provincial England is a relic and representative. But _man_ could not be used pure and simple, under all circumstances and in all cases, in the English of that day any more than, as we have seen, _mater_ and _bonus_ could be so used in Latin. There was the nominative singularâ_man_, simply; the genitive _mannes_âof a man; the dative _men_, to or for a man; accusative _mannan_âa man objectively; nominative plural _men_; genitive _manna_âof men, or menâs; and a dative _mannum_âto or for men. Of all these various forms or cases of _man_, the language has freed itself, excepting the genitive singular, _mannes_, and the nominative plural, _men_. These have been retained, not by accident, or neglect, but at the dictate of common sense, because convenience and intelligibility required their use. It was found necessary to distinguish the plural from the singular; and the genitive or possessive idea from the simple and absolute; but _man_ as a dative or accusative singular, and _men_ as the same in the plural, were found quite as useful and convenient as the old inflected forms; and therefore (or therefore finally and in a great measure) the latter were discarded. The genitive or possessive has been retained; but it has slightly changed its form; by contraction only, however; _mannes_ has become _manâs_. The old sign of the possessive was _es_; and it is this, and not the pronoun _his_ (as once was supposed) that is represented in our possessive case, in which the apostrophe merely marks the elision of the old _e_. There is really no good reason for the use of the apostrophe, none which would not apply equally to many other cases in which no elision is marked. In the Elizabethan era it was not used, and with no consequent confusion. Mans folly, the boys hat, Johns coat, are as clear in meaning as they would be with the apostrophe; and the possible confusion of the possessive with the plural, as in that fancy of the girls, and that fancy of the girlâs is so remote and so very unlikely as to be worthy of little consideration. As to English in its earliest form (Anglo-Saxon) suffice it here to say in this regard that it was so largely an inflected language, that is, it varied the forms of its words so numerously to express time of action, mode of action, person, number, case, and gender, that it is in this respect almost as unlike modern English as Greek is, and is little less difficult of acquirement to the English speaking student of to-day than Latin. Its very articles had gender forms as well as case forms; and, moreover, like the MÃ¦so-Gothic and like the Greek it had preserved the old dual number (for the expression of a plural of two) although only in the personal pronoun. A comparative examination of the pronoun of the first person and of the present tense of the verb _to have_ in their ancient and modern forms will show the mode and the reason of the changes by which English has assumed its present character. OLD ENGLISH PRONOUN OF THE FIRST PERSON. SINGULAR. DUAL. PLURAL. N. _ic_, I. _wit_, us two. _we_, we. G. _min_, of me. _uncer_, of us two. _ure_, of us. D. _me_, to, for, with me. _unc_, to or for us two. _us_, to, for, with us. A. _me_, me (objectively). _unc_, us two. _us_, us. The dual form has been swept away entirely as needless, and worse, cumbrous and perplexing; but it will be seen that we have retained every one of the other forms. _Ic_ has become I; _mine_ is still the possessive of I; _me_ is still not only the objective form of the first person, but the dative, âmake me a hat,â or âbuy me a horse,â being merely âmake a hat to or for me,â or âbuy to or for me a horse.â _We_ and _us_ will be recognized at sight, and _ure_ has only changed its pronunciation from _oor_ to _our_. These forms have been retained in our modern English partly because a pronoun is the most ancient of indestructible parts of speech,[B] but chiefly because of their usefulness, their convenience. A brief consideration of them by the intelligent reader will make this so plain that more need not be said on the subject. Now let us see the unlike fate of the verb _to have_. This will be more readily apparent if we look at it in Latin, in French, and in English (it is actually the same word in all these languages, with slight phonetic variation); and we shall thus also have another demonstration of the manner in which English differs from other languages. SINGULAR. PLURAL. Latin. French. English. Latin. French. English. 1. _habeo._ _Jâai._ I have. _habemus._ _nous avons._ we have. 2. _habes._ _tu as._ thou hast. _habetis._ _vous avez._ you have. 3. _habet._ _il a._ he has. _habent._ _ils ont._ they have. It will be seen at once that the Latin and the French have each a special plural form, and also three forms for the three persons of that number. English has swept away this plural form entirely, and uses for the plural in all its persons the simple _have_ of the first person singular. The form of the second person singular has also virtually disappeared; the simple _have_ appearing in its substitute, _you have_. Whether the form of the third person singular will ever follow the other is doubtful; but it is certain that our language has lost nothing in clearness, and has gained much in simplicity by the doing away with all the formal superfluity by which the old numbers and persons were distinguished. This simplification of the forms of words is not absolutely confined to the English language. It appears to be a tendency of language; a modern tendency, using modern in its widest sense. For this movement toward simplification appears in the Latin, in the Romance tongues formed from it, and in the Gothic languages. In none, however, does this simplification, this destruction of superfluous forms, approach, even remotely, that which has taken place in English. So different, indeed, are the results, that the process seems, if not of another kind, at least as having another motive. For example, all the other languages retain the absurdity of gender. In this respect German is no better than French. And let me here remark that the common notion that English and German are most alike of all modern languages, and most nearly akin, is altogether wrong. On the contrary, English and German are very unlike; the most unlike of all the Gothic (or Teutonic) languages. English and French have much greater likeness, both in substance and in structure. There are more words now common to the English language and to the French than to English and German; and the syntax of the French language is very much more like that of the English, than German syntax is. A French sentence literally translated in the French order of the words is, in most cases, so like an English sentence that it requires little change to be correct English, while a similar translation of a German sentence produces an effect both harsh and ludicrous. The simple form of the English language is the result of two causes. Of these the first in order of time was the conflict and subsequent mingling of the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) and the Norman-French. When two languages are thus brought together and are both spoken by two peoples, all that is superfluous in the words of each soon begins to disappear. Each people grasps only the essential in the foreign words which it is obliged to use; each soon adopts the curtailed form of its speech used by the neighbors of another race and speech with whom it is obliged to live in daily communication; and ere long a composite speech of simpler forms takes the place of two tonguesâeach of which was more complex in structure, but less rich and varied in substance. By this process, out of Anglo-Saxon and Norman-French, came modern English. But not only thus. Other languages have mingled, but never before with such a result. Never was there in any other amalgamation, such an esurience of superfluous form; a devouring which has to all intents and purposes made English a language of one-formed words, and therefore a language practically without formal grammar. In this characteristic is its strength; from this comes its flexibility, its adaptation to all the needs of man, the highest and the lowest. Hence it is eminently the language of common sense as well as of the highest flights of poetry. The English mind saw that it was not necessary to have two words to express possession in the singular and in the plural; that _good_ as clearly expressed the goodness of a woman as of a man, and that of a dozen men as well as that of one; that pens and tables needed no distinction of gender in their names; in fact that nothing was gained, and that much was lost by these grammatical excrescences; and therefore they were done away with very thoroughly, almost entirely. The process was pretty well completed some three hundred years or more ago; since when no noteworthy changes in this respect have taken place. But it is still going on, although so slowly as to be perceptible only on close examination. All the little specks of grammar that English has are mostly to be found in the pronouns, as I have before remarked. In the use of one of these a change is very gradually taking place. _Whom_ has begun to disappear, began, indeed, a long time ago; but of late is fading somewhat more perceptibly. For example: all speakers of good English say, The man whom I saw, not The man who I saw; _whom_ being the objective form of _who_. But now-a-days not one person in a hundred of the best bred and best educated speakers of English asks, Whom did you see? but, _Who_ did you see? Indeed, the latter form of the question may be regarded almost as accepted English. Yet in the latter phrase, as in the former, the pronoun is the object of the verb _see_, and should strictly have the objective form. But, Whom did you see? would now sound very formal and precise, almost priggish, like _gotten_ instead of _got_. When, however, the pronoun is brought in direct contact with the verb, as in the phrase, The man whom I saw, we shrink from insult to the little semblance of grammar that our language possesses, and give the word its objective form. The time will probably come, although it may be remote, when _whom_ will have altogether disappeared. As to _gotten_, its use is now so confined to the over-precise in this country as to make it almost an Americanism. Its disappearance from our language in England is also one of the evidences of the process of simplification which is still slowly going on. Another, which has taken place within the memory of the elder living generation, is the disappearance of the subjunctive mood, which is now obsolete, or so very obsolescent as to be met with very rarely. But thirty-five or forty years since correct writers used this mood, and wrote, for example, _if he go_ instead of _if he goes_. Of the effect of this grammarless condition of the English language we may see something in a subsequent article. FOOTNOTES [A] âEvery Day English,â chapter xvii. [B] Certain uneasy manipulators of speech have lately set themselves at making an impersonal English pronoun. Vanity of vanities! Make a pronoun? As well undertake to build a pyramid. Better. There is not a pronoun in use that was not hoary with age before the first stone of Keops was laid. SUNDAY READINGS. SELECTED BY CHANCELLOR J. H. VINCENT, D. D. [_February 1._] I find David making a syllogism, in mood and figure, two propositions he perfected. (Ps. lxvi) 18. If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me. 19. But verily God hath heard me, he hath attended to the voice of my prayer. Now I expected that David should have concluded thus: Therefore I regard not wickedness in my heart. But far otherwise he concludes: 20. Blessed be God, who hath not turned away my prayer, nor his mercy from me. Thus David hath deceived, but not wronged me. I looked that he should have clapped the crown on his own, and he puts it on Godâs head. I will learn this excellent logic, for I like Davidâs better than Aristotleâs syllogisms, that, whatsoever the premises be, I make Godâs glory the conclusion. * * * * * Young King Jehoash had only a lease of piety, and not for his own, but his uncleâs life (2 Kings xii:2): He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days, wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him. Jehu was good in the midst of his life, and a zealous reformer to the utter abolishing of Baal out of Israel, but in his old age (2 Kings x:31) he returned to the politic sins of Jeroboam, worshiping the calves in Dan and Bethel. Manasseh was bad in the beginning and middle of his life, filling Jerusalem with idolatry; only toward the end thereof, when carried into a strange land, he came home to himself and destroyed the profane altars he had erected. These three put together make one perfect servant of God. Take the morning and rise with Jehoash, the noon and shine with Jehu, the night and set with Manasseh. Begin with youth-Jehoash, continue with man-Jehu, conclude with old-man-Manasseh, and all put together will spell one good Christian, yea, one good, perfect performer. Constantly pray to God, that in his due time he would speak peace to thee.â¦ Prayers negligently performed draw a curse, but not prayers weakly performed. The former is when one can do better, and will not; the latter is when one would do better, but, alas! he can not.â¦ Be diligent in reading the word of God, wherein all comfort is contained.â¦ Thou hast a great journey to go, a wounded conscience has far to travel to find comfort (and though weary shall be welcome at his journeyâs end), and therefore must feed on Godâs word, even against his own dull disposition, and shall afterward reap benefit thereby.â¦ Be industrious in thy calling; I press this the more because some erroneously conceive that a wounded conscience cancels all indentures of service, and gives them (during their affliction) a dispensation to be idle. Let none in like manner pretend that (during the agony of a wounded conscience) they are to have no other employment than to sit moping, to brood over their melancholy, or else only to attend their devotion; whereas a good way to divert or assuage their pain within is to take pains without in their vocation. I am confident, that happy minute which shall put a period to thy misery shall not find thee idle, but employed, as some ever secret good is accruing to such who are diligent in their calling.â_Fuller._[1] [_February 8._] The Deity is intended to be the everlasting field of the human intellect, as well as the everlasting object of the human heart, the everlasting portion of all holy and happy minds, who are destined to spend a blissful but ever active eternity in the contemplation of his glory.â¦ He will forever remain âthe unknown God.â We shall ever be conscious that we know little compared with what remains to be known of him; that our most rapturous and lofty songs fall infinitely short of his excellence. If we stretch our powers to the uttermost, we shall never exhaust his praise, never render him adequate honor, never discharge the full amount of claim which he possesses upon our veneration, obedience, and gratitude. When we have loved him with the greatest favor, our love will still be cold compared with his title to our devoted attachment. This will render him the continual source of fresh delight to all eternity. His perfection will be an abyss never to be fathomed; there will be depths in his excellence which we shall never be able to penetrate. We shall delight in losing ourselves in his infinity. An unbounded prospect will be extended before us; looking forward through the vista of interminable ages we shall find a blissful occupation for our faculties, which can never end; while those faculties will retain their vigor unimpaired, flourish in the bloom of perpetual youth, â¦ and the full consciousness remain that the Being whom we contemplate can never be found out to perfection â¦ that he may always add to the impression of what we know, by throwing a veil of indefinite obscurity over his character. The shades in which he will forever conceal himself will have the same tendency to excite our adoring wonder as the effulgence of his glory; the depths in which he will retire from our view, the recesses of his wisdom and power as the open paths of his manifestation. Were we capable of comprehending the Deity, devotion would not be the sublimest employment to which we can attain. In the contemplation of such a Being we are in no danger of going beyond our subject; we are conversing with an infinite object, â¦ in the depths of whose essence and purposes we are forever lost. This will probably give all the emotions of freshness and astonishment to the raptures of beatific vision, and add a delightful zest to the devotions of eternity. This will enable the Divine Being to pour in continually fresh accessions of light; to unfold new views of his character, disclose new parts of his perfection, open new mansions of himself, in which the mind will have ample room to expatiate. Thus shall we learn, to eternity, that, so far from exhausting his infinite fullness, there still remain infinite recesses in his nature unexploredâscenes in his counsels never brought before the view of his creatures; that we know but âparts of his ways;â and that instead of exhausting our theme, we are not even approaching nearer to the comprehension of the Eternal All. It is the mysteriousness of God, the inscrutability of his essence, the shade in which he is invested, that will excite those peculiar emotions which nothing but transcendent perfection and unspeakable grandeur can inspire.â_Robert Hall._[2] [_February 15._] We need not go far to seek the materials for an acceptable offering; they lie all around us in the work of our callings, in the little calls which divine Providence daily makes to us, in the little crosses which God requires us to take up, nay, in our very recreations. The great point is to have the mind set upon seeing and seeking in all things the service of Christ and the glory of God, and, lo! every trifling incident which that mind touches, every piece of work which it handles, every dispensation to which it submits becomes a sacrifice. âIf in our daily walks our mind Be set to hallow all we find, New treasures still of countless price God will provide for sacrifice. We need not bid for cloistered cell Our neighbor and our work farewell, Nor strive to wind ourselves too high For sinful man beneath the sky; The trifling round, the common task Will furnish all we ought to ask, Room to deny ourselvesâa road To bring us daily nearer God.â If we allow the beauties of nature to raise our heart to God, we turn that into a sacrifice. If cross incidents, which could not be avoided or averted, are taken sweetly and lovingly, out of homage to the living will of God, this, too, is a sacrifice. If work be done in the full view of Godâs assignment of our several tasks and spheres of labor, and under the consciousness of his presence, however secular in its character, it immediately becomes fit for presentation on the altar. If refreshment and amusement are so moderated as to help the spirit instead of dissipating it, if they are to be seasoned with the wholesome salt of self-denial (for every sacrifice must be seasoned with salt) they, too, become a holy oblation. If we study even perverse characters, with a loving hope and belief that we shall find something of God and Christ in them, which may be made the nucleus of better things, and instead of shutting ourselves up in a narrow sphere of sympathies, seek out and try to develop the good points of a generally uncongenial spirit; if we treat men as Christ treated them, counting that somewhere in every one there is a better mind, and the trace of Godâs finger in creation, we may thus possibly sanctify an hour which would else be one of irksome constraint, and after which we might have been oppressed with a heavy feeling that it had been a wasted one. If a small trifle, destined to purchase some personal luxury or comfort, be diverted to a charitable and religious end, this is the regular and standing sacrifice of alms, recognized by the Scripture and the Liturgy. And finally, if we regard our time as, next to Christ, and the Holy Spirit, the most precious gift of God; if we gather up the fragments and interstices of it in a thrifty and religious manner, and employ them in some exercise of devotion or some good and useful work, this, too, becomes a tribute which God will surely accept with complacency, if laid upon his altar and united by faith and a devout intention with the one Sacrifice of our dear Lord. Yes; if laid upon his altar; let us never forget or drop out of sight that proviso. It is the altar, and the altar alone, which sanctifieth the gift. Apart from Christ and his perfect sacrifice, an acceptable gift is an impossibility for man. For at best our gifts have in them the sinfulness of our nature; they are miserably flawed by defectiveness of motive, duplicity of aim, infirmity of will. âThe prayers of all saints,â what force of interpretation must they have with God, if, as we are sure, âthe effectual, fervent prayer of aâ (single) ârighteous man availeth much!â Yet when St. John saw in a vision âthe prayers of all saintsâ offered âupon the golden altar which was before the throne,â it was in union with that which alone can perfume the tainted offsprings of even the regenerate man. âThere was given unto him much increase, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which is before the throne.â The increase is the intercession of Jesus. Place your offering, be it prayer or alms, deed or work, or submissionâin his hands for presentation; pray him, as your only priest, to transact for you with God, and he will do so. And the sense of Godâs favor shall shine out upon thy offering; and the dew of his blessing shall descend upon it, and ye shall be gladdened with your Fatherâs smile.â_Goulburn._[3] [_February 22._] _Heaven, as a place of residence and state of enjoyment, should always be viewed in contrast with earth._ This is a state of pupilage and probation, that of dignity and promotion. Here is conflict, there victory. This is the race, that the goal. Here we suffer, there we reign. Here we are in exile, there at home. On earth we are strangers and pilgrims, in heaven fellow citizens with the saints; and, released from the strife and turmoil, the bitterness and regrets of earth, are incorporated forever with the household of God. This is triumph! How striking the contrast! How must earth and its trials be lost sight of in such a vision! How must this contrast strengthen the ties of confidence, and kindle the ardor of devotion! What did Moses care for the perils of the wilderness, when, from the storm-defying steep of Pisgah, he viewed the land of promise, imaging forth the green fields of heavenâs eternal spring! Look at Elijah, the immortal Tishbite, exchanging the sighs and solitude of his juniper shade, for wheels of fire and steeds of wind that bore him home to God! Look at Paulâpoor, periled and weary, amid the journeyings and conflicts of his mission: the hand that once stretched the strong eastern tent, or wore the dungeonâs chain, now sweeps in boldest strain the harps of heaven.â¦ Look at the Christian of apostolic and early times, exchanging the clanking of his chains and the curses of his jailorâthe dungeonâs den and martyrâs stakeâfor the notes of gladness and lofty anthem pealing from lute and harp, bedecked with eternal amaranth! The load of chain with which he went out to meet the descending car of his triumph, with its angel escort, was a richer dowry than the jewels of empire! The taper that flickered in the dungeon of the sainted hero shot a ray more glorious than ever spoke the splendor of the full-orbed moon! What are the crowns or the diadems of all this worldâs masters or CÃ¦sars, compared with the prospects of such an expectant! * * * * * Christians! what need we care, although on earth we were so poor and low we had nor purse nor pillow; so few and trodden down we had no power; and hamlets, huts and grottoes were the places where we wept and prayed; if these are to be exchanged for a residence amid the jaspers and chrysolites, the emeralds and sapphires of the heavenly Jerusalem! What though soiled by the dust of toil or damp with the dungeonâs dewâstruggling amid tattered want along our lone and periled pathâwhen even here we find ourselves invested with glory in the night of our being, and sustained by hopes guiding and pointing us to the temple hymn and the heavenly harp above! â¦â_Bascom._[4] HOME STUDIES IN CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS. BY PROF. J. T. EDWARDS, D.D. Director of the Chautauqua School of Experimental Science. CHEMISTRY OF FIRE.âANCIENT FANCIES. In all ages, and among all nations, fire has been regarded with peculiar interest. Of the four great elements so essential to lifeâearth, air, water, fireâthe last has often been considered as divine in its origin and influence. To the unscientific observer it seems more than matter, and little less than spirit. Contemplating a flame, he sees that while it has form, it lacks solidity. He may pass a sword through it, but like the ghost of the story, no wound is made in its ethereal substance. Its touch is softer than down, but it penetrates the hardest substances. The diamond carves glass, but flame destroys the diamond. Men early found that fire was directly connected with their comfort and progress, and even essential to their existence. How they first obtained it is still matter of conjecture; whether it was brought down from the skies, as the ancient Greeks supposed, struck out from the flinty rock, evolved by the friction of dry wood, kindled by the lightning, or obtained from the flaming torch of the volcano, we can not tell. Certain it is, that having once been obtained, all the early races were very careful to preserve it. Among many it was regarded as sacred, and kept perpetually burning, both in their places of worship and in their homes. The officers appointed for its preservation were of the highest rank and influence. Among the titles assumed by Augustus CÃ¦sar was that of keeper of the public fire. Whenever by accident the fire in the temple of Vesta, at Rome, was extinguished, all public business was at once suspended, because the connection between heaven and earth was believed to be severed, and must be restored before business could properly proceed. Grecian colonists carried fire to their new homes from the altar of Hestia. The âPrytaneumâ[1] of the ancient Greeks and Romans was a place where the national fire was kept always burning; it was here the people gathered, foreign ambassadors received, and hospitalities of the state were offered. Here, too, heads of families obtained coals for lighting their household fires, which in turn became sacred, so that every hearth was an altar, where resided the Lares and Penates, the gods who presided over the welfare of the home. Fancies akin to these beliefs of olden time may still be found among the nations of the East and in northern Europe. MODERN FALLACIES. No correct ideas of combustion were attained until the time of Lavoisier.[2] This great French savant gave precision and accuracy to the investigations of chemical science by the introduction of the balance. He disproved the theory that âwater is the ultimate principle of all things,â and prepared the way for a clear apprehension of the truth that matter, though constantly changing its form, is never destroyed. He also announced the correct theory of combustion. Until this time scientists had held what was called the âPhlogiston[3] Theory.â We can but smile at the absurdity of this belief, and yet no hypothesis was ever taught more positively, or maintained more tenaciously. It declared, in brief, that when substances burned, they parted with a certain material called phlogiston. When, at length, its advocates were asked to explain the fact, discovered by Dr. Priestly,[5] that quicksilver, when burned, weighed more than before, they were forced to put forward the ridiculous statement that phlogiston possessed the property of âbuoyancyâ so that when it was contained in a body its weight was lessened; which was as wise as the brilliant supposition that a person can lift himself over a fence by tugging at his boot straps. After a fierce struggle they were forced to confess that they had placed âthe cart before the horse.â The truth was precisely opposite to their statement. Substances when they burn take up something instead of giving it off. That something is oxygen, and a body when burned, if it can be weighed, will be found to weigh as much more as the added weight of the oxygen which has united with it. Example: Iron-rust is iron, plus oxygen. [Illustration: MAGNESIUM RIBBON BURNING, AND PRODUCING MAGNESIC OXIDE (MgO).[4]] THE TRUE EXPLANATION. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the heat and light produced by chemical action. It will be remembered that by this term (chemical action) is meant the process of uniting two or more different elements to form a compound different from either. We usually consider air essential to combustion, but this is not necessarily the fact. Gold foil or powdered antimony, dropped into a jar of chlorine, spontaneously ignites. Even in the interior of the earth, heat must be produced by the uniting of any elements that have an affinity for each other. [Illustration: BORACIC ACID IMPARTS A GREEN COLOR TO THE FLAME OF ALCOHOL.[6]] The most common agent of combustion is oxygen. Of this interesting gas some description has been given in a preceding article. It is the fruitful
{'title': 'The Chautauquan, Vol. 05, February 1885 by Chautauqua Institution et al.', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}