NEW ZEALAND MAGAZINE.

Evening Star, Issue 4104, 22 April 1876, Page 2

NEW ZEALAND MAGAZINE.

No. n.

Wo are not of those who hold that "Seneca cannot be too heavy, nor Plautus too light”; and therefore we think it some- “ what unreasonable that the reading public should be expected to appreciate either extreme in a Magazine which purports to bo a "Journal of. General Literature.” In this respect the ‘ Hew Zealand Magazine ’ is a great sinner. As Macanley said of Dr Hares’ “Memoirs of Lord Burleigh,” it might, before the Deluge, have been considered light reading by Hilpa and Shalum, but will scarcely be so considered by the present generation. In turning over its leaves we cannot but be struck by the almost total absence of readable matter of the ordinary magazine type, and, laying it. down in despair, we exclaim with the Yankee shopman : "Whence this thusness ?” Is it that m Hew Zealand there is a lack of writers of the proper stamp; or has the stupendous ponderosity of the first number scared them away from the awful sanctum which is pre* sided over by a quintett of grave and reverend editors ? Be this as it may, there is no disputing the fact; and this is matter for regret, because the venture has been spiritedly commenced and we should like to see it prosper. The articles in the present number arc good enough in their way, but they certainly are not greatly in accordance with the taste of the reading public; and unless the proprietors core more for the dissemination of opinion than for pecuniary success, a radical change in this respect is absolutely necessary. It is something to their credit, however, to find that the magazine has not, as was at first apprehended, been made the organ of any political party. If Ho. 1 savored rather too much of Provincialism, Ho. 2 savors quite as strongly of Centralism—or if the phrase be preferred of Abolitionism. Themostardentofaholitionists muot be satisfied, if not satiated indeed, with the duplicate articles in favor of his views, contributed by Mr J. H. Shaw and the Bev. David Bruce, nevertheless the wisdom of devoting so much space to one subject, and that to a political subject which has already been discussed in the newspaper press, usque ad nauseam, from all conceiv- . able and some entirely inconceivable points of view jnay fairly be questioned. In all, about sixty out of a total of 220 pages have been occupied with the pros and cons of this single theme, and now that equal justice has been do&'e to both sides of the question it is to be hej'ed that we shall have no more of it.

If we were Asked to name the beat—using the phrase in tbe sense of "most suitable” —article in thoi present number we should certainly give tfhe palm to Mr Chapman’s “ Plea for the Vulgar Tongue.” Its greatest fault is that it is much too brief. In these days when the affectation of a nice pre fusion of language has almost degenerated into euphuism, it is pleasing to find a scholarly gentleman reminding us that a considerable number tf)f “ vulgar locutions ” are not, properly spaaking, corruptions at all, but are "the vestiges of an older form of speech ; that they wert'- once strictly grammatical and proper; thst it is the literary language and the more rafined speech of the educated classes which must .be charged with innovation; that even some words and phrases which have been degraded to the region of slang, once enjoyed respectable rank ; and that the mass of the people, always conservative in their traditions, their principles, and their superstitions, as well as in their language, still retain some old forms of speech handed down to them by their fathers, which the more refined and cultivated classes have gradually departed from.” In truth, the English language, as spoken at the court of King Alfred, and written by Chancer, whose works have aptly been termed "a well of English undefiled” is the English "understanded of the common people ” still. Their intellectual superiors have so changed it by numberless corruptions and innovations, borrowed or pilfered from “the alms-basket of words” that it is no longer recognisable. " They have been at a' great feast of languages and stolen the scraps;” and the outcome is something which, however useful and convenient as a vehicle of thought and expression, is not, in any true sense of the word, a language at all. Dr Roseby’s paper on the "Unseen Universe ” is a laudatory review of the volume of the same name recently published by Professors Tait and Thomson; and, like its original, it is an ambitious and not very successful attempt to reconcile the conflicting doctrines of science and religion. Poor Hugh Miller vexed his brains even to suicide by a similar effort, and if the same consequence has not befallen other Professors and their reviewers, it is possibly owing to there not being any superfluity of brains to vex. To “ establish, on purely physical grounds, the possibility of man’s immortality ” is a difficult task ; and of a verity we must oWn that if nothing more convincing of the immortality of the vital essence (properly called "the spirit,” but too often erroneously designated “ the soul”) could be alleged than is here set forth, we should be compelled to abandon the doctrine altogether. Dr Eoseby assumes much as granted which is at best but conjectural. That “science has already settled what will become of the visible universe,” is an instance of a proposition to which we are by no means inclined to assent ; nor (with all due respect be it said) can St. Peter and Mr William Shakespeare be accepted as competent scientific authorities. But, indeed Dr Roseby is not happy in his choice of authorities. In brief space be presses into his service Babbage and Dr Crookes, Bishop Butler, Swedenborg, and Sir William Hamilton; the doctrines of Continuity and Causality, the so called phenomena of Spiritualism, the theory of the metempsychosis, and the teachings of the

Christian religion. AH is fish that comes to his net, and after this crude fashion it is proposed to reconcile science and religion. We are told that “ it is certainly not easy to deny the reality of certain recent alleged developments of what is called “Spiritualism,” to wit, the materialisation of apparently spirit* forms—such for instance as the luminous cloud described by l>r Crookes as having been seen to hover over a heliotrope, break a sprig off, and carry it to a lady ; —“beauti-

fully formed hands ” owned by nobody in particular, and resolving into vapor when seized, and similar absurdities. But as “to the future life, which is the object of Christian faith” and “includes more than the immortality of the soul” (spirit?) namely “ the redemption of the body,”—he finds it “ not easy to state what is meant by that.” In fine he leads his readers into a trackless wilderness of speculation, and

leaves them to grope their way out of it as best they may. To understand anything of the argument itself, the review or, better still, the book reviewed mupt be consulted; but, to our mind, the study of such dreamy works is neither instructive nor profitable. After turning down the final page of the article on the “Unseen Universe,” it is mightily refreshing to take up Dr Alexander’s pleasantly-written sketch of New Guinea, m which he has collated all that is known of that great island. The subject has peculiar attractions at the present juncture, when enterprising adventurers in both hemispheres, sighing for more worlds to conquer, are turning their attention to the colonisation of the Malayan Archipelago,— a project which it is to be hoped will be defeated by the determined stand made against it in high quarters. We quite agree with

the writer that civilisation should precede colonisation, and that the process of civilisation can beat be carried on without occupation of the country, which indeed is, by reason of its olimate and other detrimental causes, very unsuitable for settlement by European races. The following remarks are so pertinent to the question that they are here given entire :—“ Colonisation disturbs and un-

settles the Natives : their habits get changed for the worse, and European vices and epidemics which are lightly home by Europeans, become fatal to numbers among indigenous races of the tropics when once introduced, . . . _ The Tonga group presents a most favorable instance of a country Christianised and civilised, and the indigenous race remaining in a flourishing state. Had this group been colonised, could the same good result have occurred? Wallace was

much struck with the change among the Malay inhabitants of the Peninsula of Minnahasaa, in the Island of Celebes, who from savage head-hunters had been converted into peaceful cultivators, by the Dutch Government offering a fixed amount for all the produce they raised of coffee and spaces, and in no other way interfering with them. The culture system, which is so enormous a tax on the industry of the Javanese, here becomes a means of civilisation of a most potent character.” Mr Macleay, whose recent expedition to New Guinea will be remembered, declares that “ the idea of a party of Englishmen settling in New Guinea for the purpose of cultivating the land is preposterous. All the labor required would have to bo imported, paid for, and protected, for assuredly no help could be got from the Natives. The black (native) race could not be made to work, and the light colored people could only be utilised under a system of compulsion, which would never be toler’ated in a country under British protection.” It is true' no doubt that the hostile character of the Papuans on the South Coast has become somewhat modified of late, and that white men are now kindly received by them. Captain Moresby „ attributes this change to the good results of the pearl-shell traffic which brings the natives into frequent contract with European traders from the Australian coast and elsewhere, and .who, for their own sake, take care to keep on friendly terms with the Papuans. In this way a healthy civilisation is

spreading without the attendant evils of colonisation, and it will be well if the issue is suffered to work itself out in this natural fashion, without interference with the territorial rights, so jealously conserved, by the people of New Guinea. Dr Alexander’s article is brim-full of information, and will amply repay perusal. Professor Macgregor contributes another paper on the “Problem of Poverty,” his essay upon which was so unmercifully cut short in the middle in the first number. We cannot say that wo are much more enlightened by this second portion than we were by the first. He treats us to a great deal of diluted Carlyleism, and asks an infinite number of questions, whereto he furnishes no sufficient replies. As however the subject is “to be continued” we reserve our criticism until the solution of the “ Problem”

is made manifest. What the nature thereof may be we do not venture to say, but it would seem to be shadowed forth by the following ;—“The most fundamental, as well as unfortunately the most difficult of all our social problems is—“ How far the coercive impulse of conscience can be followed by the individual, by society, and by the State respectively ? ” This is a very pretty thesis as it stands, and it would be a monstrous pity if it were spoiled by the promised explanation. It must be rather terrifying, however, to ordinary people to be told that “the mere juxtaposition of the Categorical Imperative of conscience, and the naked facts of our boasted civilisation, cannot fail to suffuse with the burning blush of shame the face of every man whose conscience is not stifled, and whose whole mind is not stupified by the mephitic atmosphere of our lucre-loving society ; ” and, that, as a people, we have been in a condition of

“stertorous, comatose slumber,” during which “the rumbling of the earthquake has been disregarded and its warning ignored.” And scarcely less startling is the assurance that “supply and demand” have become “ a formula to exorcise the qualms of conscience” —“a refuge of lies’’which “cannot much longer give shelter to any but deliberate liars !” yet these are hut fair average specimens of the grotesque style indulged in by the Professor. The political articles in the 'Magazine* mast be reserved for a future notice. Of tbe poetical contributions little need be said. Tia sufficient that they are “ Posthumous Poems ” and that their author was a lady, to screen them 'from , adverse criticism. More than this we cannot say.