REVIEW.

Evening Star, Issue 4015, 8 January 1876, Page 1 (Supplement)

REVIEW.

The New Zealand Magazine, a quarterly Journal of General Literature. Under date the Ist of January, the first number of this magazine was issued; we trust it will not be the last, although it seems doubtful whether there are in New Zealand, writers and readers sufficient to support one so pretentious in its promises. The editor’s introductory article professes to set before the public two distinguishing features that are to mark the subject matter of this journal, which he describes under the broad and convenient headings : “ What it is intended to be,” and “What it is not intended to be.” The last seems to be the more easily defined, and as we are told the “ best testimony to success ” will be not to have “ entirely pleased anyone,” we are quite ready to think success has been abundantly achieved. Following up the editor’s notions of what magazines should not be, we find him drawing a distinction between them and newspapers, which, he affirms, “with all their apparent freedom, are bound by certain fetters which render their work a peculiar one.” We presume, he alludes to newspapers owned by Joint Stock Companies, the editors of which veer all round the political compass, gathering from each point a sop to please some influential shareholder. Our experience has been very limited in that direction, so we cannot dispute his statement. It is not, however, from the newspapers nor their trained editors that the matter for this magazine s to be derived, but from “sheep farmers,” with fermenting brains, working “in a yeasty fashion,” on “the laud or wool question,” or “ a manufacturer or employer of mechanics,” ennobled by Colonial simplicity. We see it is intended also that immigrants who act upon the labor market ” are to tell of the way in which they make their impressions, and in short, we gather that this journal is to be a record of all that is crude in art, science, and philosophy. There may be utility in this plan, but in this Colony too much mischief has been done by political economy learnt on the sheep farm, mechanical philosophy learnt in the workshop, and sociology gathered from narrow fields of observation. In justification of this mode of treating economic subjects, the editor draws attention to what he conceives to be the mistakes of Malthus and Mill, both of whom he has evidently misunderstood. Neither Malthus nor Mill ever said that the world was over-populated, but that population had a tendency to increase more rapidly than food to feed them. Had the editor of the ‘N ew Zealand Magazine ’ paused to reflect, it might have struck him that there is nothing in this theory inconsistent with our experience in New Zealand, simply because there is no analogy between increase of population by natural means and multiplication by immigration. The “yeasty brain” may not have worked out the problem yet, so possibly this eimpl destination may lie esteemecl ‘‘ no email beer ” by him in a future number.

Haying explained the class expected to contribute to the Magazine for the instruction of those willing to read “yeasty ” theories, a few knotty questions, or as they are denominated “intricate problems,” are propounded for solution. One, we suppose is addressed to Colonially ennobled butchers, who are asked; “Are we increasing the

number of stall-fed ‘humans,’ whose soul is in their feeding-trough, or is the leisure which is undoubtedly secured under these conditions employed for purposes of culture?” It is only fair to say that the editor may intend to inquire into the effect prosperity ! is likely to have upon those who acquire riches by labor. He adds to this a query respecting future social distinctions, and looks with apprehension upon the possible “place and estimation which genius is likely to take in society. ” As our opinions have not been formed by merely contemplating the tail of a sheep or the mechanism of a machine, or through the frothy workings of a “ yeasty brain,” it is quite possible they may be worthless measured by such standards as those influences are likely to produce. Our deductions are merely from history, and a slight knowledge of the tendency of extended education and intelligence to place a right estimate upon high attainments in art, science, and “ learning. ” Anyone who knows anything of the dependent position onthe great, of men of genius in past ages, and compares it with the independence of their present condition, will have no difficulty in, arriving at the conclusion that as knowledge spreads the honor in which they will be held, and the comfort they will live in, will increase. But mediocrity will not pass. Smatterers will be detected, for there will be intelligent critics. To achieve distinction will be a more arduous task than now. It was easy some .fifty years ago to pass for a giant in learning, because there were so many dwarfs ; but now, there are so many well grown men, that a giant must be truly great. There will be those in days to come disappointed in not achieving the distinction to which they think themselves entitled, who will complain that “dollars are everything.” It has always been so in all stages of civilisation ; but nowhere has it proved true. On the other hand, wherever “dollars ” are plentiful and thought free, liberal support has been accorded to genius and learning. But perhaps we are wasting too much time in commenting on the editor’s aspirations after inspired innocence. Instead therefore of saying anything upon his notions of the Eeview literature of England, it will be more to the point to state how far the contributors to this magazine realise the ideal conceived by him. The yeasty-headed sheep farmers are evidently in embryo, and instead we find appended to the contributions the signatures of men who have signalised themselves more or less in the Colony. We regard it as somewhat of a drawback that some of the subjects are of a purely speculative character. Following the introductory paper is one entitled “ Darwino-theology,” by Mr James Edward Fitzgerald. It is an attempt to reconcile the development theory of Darwin with the Mosaic account of the Creation. Having some recollection of the able manner in which Mr Fitzgerald formerly conducted a newspaper in Christchurch, we were sadly disappointed on reading this evidence of time wasted and thought misdirected. Mr Fitzgerald’s first effort is to disarm those who may be inclined to class him with unbelievers. He therefore lays it down that he is is justified in his attempt, because “those who discard the historic truth of a narrative sometimes do so more in a reverend spirit than those who see nothing beyond the superficial details.” Having thus opened the way for himself by salving his conscience, he goes on to show that the story of the Creation, as related by Moses, is “an Oriental poem, highly figurative, to a great extent mythical.” Assuming this to be true, what is to be gained by so elaborate an endeavor to prove it strictly true according to Darwin ? Were they word for Avord alike Ave look upon it nothing Avould be gained, for there are greater difficulties connected Avith belief in Danviu’s theory, as generally understood, than in accepting the M osaic narrative as true. So far as development is concerned, Ave see nothing very inconsistent Avith observed facts, excepting that tne original type of every species may be traced in every generation of it, and avc belleve we are correct in saying, in spite of “natural selection,” there is a constant tendency to return to it. The dog or the horse may be improved physically and intelligently by associating Avith man ; but separated from him, natural ; selection does not prevent relapse into instinctiA'e forms and habits. We see ' nothing gained to science, morality, or religion by groping after modes of groAvth, 1 which from the nature of the case can never be verified. EA r en could it be demonstrated 1 that in immensely remote ages, by an inexplicable process, animal life Avas evolved from some peculiar combinations of mineral substance, the phenomenon of mind Avould still remain a mystery. If by some improvable theories it is sought to shed light on the attributes of Deity, Ave submit that infinite forethought, benevolence, and constructive skill are eA'inced, whether Danvin be correct in his idea of the development of species, or Avhether they exist through the exertion of separate creative efforts. But we object to the assertion of Mr Fitzgerald that “ the doctrine of the Scripture is that lif? —organic life, animal as Avell as vegetable—is the offspring of inorganic matter, operating by Aurtue of the IaAV of production and change impressed upon it.” That life, vegetable and animal, imparts to certain organisations the poAver to assimilate inorganic matter is indisputable ; and it is not less true that it confers a reproductive poAver, by Avhich species is continued in a progressively increasing number of individuals. But avo demur to “life,” AA'hich appears to be something added to inorganic matter and the cause of change, being regarded as its offspring.

On Mr Fitzgerald’s notion that the first chapters in the book of Genesis are an Oriental poem, there is no end to the conceits that may be evolved from it; but there are difficulties connected with the text that will not yield to the strict logic of science. Dr. Pye Smith tried his hand at wedging it into the science of geology, but there were corners that would not fit. Hugh Miller had only one hitch to get over—he could not manage to make the successive days coincide ; yet both appeared to be nearer to reconciling science with the Mosaic narrative than Mr Fitzgerald; for neither thought it necessary like him to claim the privilege of putting his own interpretation on it under the plea of its being an Oriental poem so highly figurative as to Tie out of the pale of philosophy. Possibly, too, by a much more close interpretation than Mr Fitzgerald’s, it could be shown that there is an approximation in certain portions of the narrative to what might reasonably be expected to have occurred, assuming that man was created with his faculties perfect, but strange to the world in which he was placed, aud with everything to learn. Let us try what may be made of it, for wc do not sec but we have an equal right with other people to do so As a preliminary wc assume it granted that the order of development or creation, given in Genesis, is pretty nearly correct; at any rate so far as man being the latest formed creature, for whose benefit wore all prior creative processes. It would follow that at his advent, earth was inhabited by wild, savage, and gigantic animals, against whose attacks ha had neither knowledge nor strength to contend. Is it likely that the finished work would bo allowed to be crushed out by haply one feed of some carnivorous saurian or mammal ho had not learnt to cope with ? The Creator would have cared very little for His own work bad it been bo, But tbe Mosaic account,

■without claiming for man any miraculous gifts, points out very effectual measures for his safety and intellectual, moral, and religious education. As he was weak and ignorant, he was placed on an island for safety. There he fed off indigenous fruit and learned the nature of plants. (Solitariness is made the inducement to study the nature of animals. He is said to have had them brought before him in order to find one with whom he could mate. According to his observations he named them. Mr Fitzgerald coincides with this view, and names it the “birth of speech.” By this process of observation and experience—culture of the intellect—however brought about, he is made acquainted with what is necessary to his subsistence and defence.

How long this preliminary education was continued, the historian does not say, but not finding a suitable companion amongst the inferior animals, one is given to him —“the mother of all living.” As the progenitor of men to the end of Time, while provision was made for his material welfare, his moral culture was not’neglected. All experience, as well as revelation, prove that the end and purpose of this is to lead to a course of conduct founded upon a knowledge of Avhat is due to others, and that this involves a course of self-denial. A moment’s reflection will, however, convince that as a test of morality, obedience to the commandments contained in the second table was impossible. Having no parents, neither Adam nor Eve could be asked to honor father and mother ; being the only pair, they were not likely to commit murder, and as man and wife they could not commit adultery; possessing all things, they could not steal, nor could they vilify and calumniate their neighbors. It follows, therefore, that some test, applicable to their condition, should be required of them, and the narrative sets up one which many have ridiculed but which may not be far from true—abstinence from a desirable but forbidden fruit. It may not appear a very severe test to us, but we are many removes from their condition. We point out these few matters, not having, so far as we recollect, seen them noticed before. Our purpose is more that of drawing attention to the comparative consistency of what is said to have taken place with what must be considered probable, if the Mosaic account of man’s creation—not development from an inferior type—be true. For our own parts, we see so many difficulties connected with the development theory, that until they are explained we are slow to accept it. Material growth is one thing ; but mental and moral developments seem to involve something so different in kind that we look upon the “ origin of species ” as at present a very ingenious theory, but a mere guess at truth. There are other papers in the 1 Review’ of which we purpose giving extended notices.