Obrázky na stránke

humanitarian and moral ideas. Things hurtful to man have no value. Rum, fire-arms, and munitions of war are worse than valueless, and their manufacture waste. Things machine-made, houses, cloths, ntensils, imitations of works of art, have but little value in developing the human mind or heart, or adding to the sum of human good, and are, therefore, of very limited worth. “ Wealth does not consist in the accidental object of a morbid desire, but in the constant object of a legitimate one."

A man's power over his property, he contends, is fivefold. Use for self, administration for others, ostentation, destruction, or bequest; and possession is only found in the first, and is sternly limited to shelter, a little food, a few clothes, a few books, a little adıniration of works of art. About all one can do with property is to administer or maladminister it, or become a cnrator of what he imagines to be his.

Wealth must always be to a people a variable qnantity and quality, depending upon the number of persons who have a capacity for its use and appreciate the different things which constitute it, and consists in the relation of these things to the following questions: What is the nature of the things it has? What is their quantity in relation to the population? Who, and how many, hold them, and in what proportions? Who are the claimants upon them, and in what proportions ? What is the relation of the thing to the currency? The things held may be profitable or useless : food, clothing, books, houses, works of art; or sky-rockets, gunpowder, chromos, or rum. The more it has of the latter the poorer a people are. So that the laws of a true economy do not depend upon demand and supply, but principally upon what is demanded, and what supplied.

He denies utterly the wage fund theory, is opposed to interest upon money, and favors a rent only sufficient to keep up the wear and tear of property and pay its tax. He contends that labor is not limited by capital, save by the capital of heart and hand. Capital is the product of labor, and is valueless without it; and if all of it was swept from existence labor could produce it again, as it is constantly increasing it now.

Space will not permit a further amplification of Mr. Ruskin's theories of political economy. The reader will find a full discussion of the subject in his Munera Pulveris and Fors Clavigera, with ample illustrations and various puttings of the case. These theories are so at variance with those generally received that they have attracted but little attention from thinkers; but, true or false, they are an attempt to take the science of political economy out of its utter materialism and supreme selfishness, and re-assert the grand old truth that it is “righteonsness exalteth a nation,” while “sin is a reproach to any people,” and a declaration that the solution of all social and economic problems must be found in the application to them of the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

He attributes the miseries of the slums, the debasement of the people, the poverty and suffering, the wretchedness and cruelty, the seething mass of moral rottenness and death, to the practical infidelity which declares in practice that God's laws are right in theory, but the devil's laws are the only practical ones in business, and to what he deems the imbecile and wicked social and economic order of the present times. Living is more expensive, life more burdensome, poverty and want more prevalent, the people more brutalized, because The greater part of the labor of the people is spent unproductively; that is to say, producing iron plates, iron guns, gunpow; der, infernal machines, infernal fortresses floating about, infernal fortresses standing still, infernal means of mischievous locomotion, infernal law-suits, infernal parliamentary elocution, infernal beer, infernal gazettes, magazines, and pictures. Calculate the labor spent in producing these infernal articles annually, and put against it the labor spent in producing food ; the only wonder is that the poverty is not tenfold what it is.*

He believes that government should be so far paternal that it should foster the healthful pursuits of a people, preventing hurtful ones; that every manufactured article should be required to be of good workmanship and material, and that it should never be sold for less than cost of production; that a minimum price should annually be set upon all things, according to locality, cost of production, and transportation. This would prevent underselling, imperfect mannfacture, and the demoralization which grows out of a conscienceless competition.

He is not in favor of a democratic forin of government, but of an aristocratic one. He believes in a ruling class, ruling because of qualification to rule; and a lower class, removed alike from serfdom and sovereignty.

* Fors Clavigera, vol. i.

Mr. Ruskin is an eminently devont and religions man. In earlier life he was strictly Evangelical, and is still so in a large measure; but his views have widened as knowledge has in. creased, and in his later writings there is a seeming departure from his earlier faith, yet it is but seeming. There is a breadth and sweep of moral vision that is very wide, but he never loses his reverent spirit, veneration for God's word, or spirit of love for God's creatures. Nay, these rather increase, and because they do he is unsparing in his castigation of the Church when it fails to measure up to its care of, and work for, the best interests of mankind. Sesame and Lilies furnishes fine illustrations of this, as well as numberless passages scattered through all his later works, where he shows a loss of respect for a good deal of the so-called Christianity of the day, as many earnest and broadly cultured men do. Many of his expositions of Scripture are novel, but they are valuable and suggestive. They are conceptions from an independent stand-point, and as such are worthy of careful study.

When you take np a work of Ruskin you may be sure that you will find nothing in it to lower your moral tone, but every thing to stimulate and elevate it. Whether you agree with him or not you will be impressed with the fact that he is no ordinary man, but one of profonnd thought and learning, candid, honest, and sincere. He believes what he advocates, and is imbued with reverence for God and love for his fellow-men. A spirit strong, tender, loving, and true, you cannot read him without in some measure partaking of a like quality of spirit. No man of the century will leave behind him a greater or more beneficial influence in the lines of his pursuits and teaching than he. Charming in style, beautifully poetic in thought, a diction that is the admiration of the English-speaking world and the ornament of the English tongue ; with a thoroughness of culture in æsthetic and literary lines unequaled, allied to a spirit philanthropic, tender, loving, yet strong; a devoutness like that of an olden prophet, and a heroism and industry unsurpassed, John Ruskin stands forth an honor to his race and a benefactor to mankind.


[ocr errors]


IN THE REIGN OF SHALMANESER II. It is the purpose of the following paper to show the actual agreement of the biblical and Assyrian chronology for the period embracing the first twenty-one years of the reign of Shalmaneser II. (B. C. 860-839). There will thus be established the general accuracy of both accounts. So far as may be necessary for this purpose the events in the history of Judea, Israel, Assyria and Syria, or Damascus, will be synchronized.

For this synchronization it is of importance to settle the question,“Was A-ha-ab-bu Sir-'-lai Ahab of Israel ?” Assyriologists for the most part affirm, George Smith seems to deny. Rev. D. P. Haigh suggested that the geographical name should be read “Su-hala, or Sam-hala, or Sav-hala, a kingdom near Damascus. The phrase occurs but once; namely, in Shalmaneser's Karch (Kurch) monolith account of the battle of Karkar (Qarqar, A roer), fought in the sixth year of his reign.

Schradert renders this account thus: “Karkar, my (his) royal city, I destroyed, laid waste, consumed with fire, 1,200 chariots, 1,200 horsemen, 20,000 inen of Dad'idri of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 horsemen, 10,000 men of Irchulin of Hamath ; 2,000 chariots, 10,000 men of [A-ha-ab-bu Sir-'-lai] Ahab of Israel; 500 men of the Guaen; 1,000 men from the land of [Mu-us-ra-ai] Egypt; 10 chariots, 10,000 men from the land of Irkanett; 200 men of Mantinubaal of Arvad ; 200 men from the land of Ursanat; 30 chariots, 10,000 men of Adunuba'al of Sizan ; 1,000 camels of Gindibuh of Arba ; ... 100 men of Balsa, son of Ruchub of Ainmon ; these twelve princes he (that is, Irchulin of Hamath) took to his assistance, advanced to join combat against me.” It is important to keep in view that the head and front of this alliance was Irchnlin of Hamath. So Smith: "Irchulena, king of Ilamath, having summoned his allies to his assistance," etc. The Assyrian defeated them, and writes: “14,000 of their troops I slew." He liere and in the two other accounts claims that twelve kings were opposed to himn (apparently not including Dad'idri), but names only eleven persons. In the inscriptions on the Black Øbelisk he claims to have slain 20,500; in the Bull Inscription the namber is 25,000,* a variation for which no reason is given.

* Smith, Eponym Canon, pp. 189, 190. + Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, Eng. Translation, vol. i, p. 186, etc. | Assyria from the Monuments, p. 50.

Tiie fact may be emphasized that neither A-ha-ab-bu nor Sir-'-lai have been elsewhere found among the cuneiform inscriptions, and also that Israel is never elsewhere represented by Sir-'-lai. The unchallenged names of Israel from the time when first referred to are, according to Schrader, “ mat BitHumri”—land of the house of Omri; or “inat Humri”—land of Omri; Sa-mi-ri-na-Samaria (pp. 178, 179). These names are used from the time of Shalınaneser II. to Sargon, after whose reign the land is never again mentioned (p. 181).

On the same Black Obelisk on which he gives an account of this very battle of Karkar, Shalınaneser himself uses the expression “abal Hu-un-ri-i”—son of Omri—to identify the king of Israel who, twelve years afterward, paid him tribute. That he should use a name to designate Israel never before and never afterward used for that purpose, nor indeed for any purpose, since it is never again found, is altogether incredible, and the interpretation is absolutely unsupported by any other evidence. It may, therefore, fairly be doubted that either Ahab or Israel was intended by the “great king” in the Karch inscription. Neither of the names is orthographically the same as the Hebrew IŅms, Ahab, and Senten, Israel. A mere inspection proves that, and no reason has been given for the difference.

Starting, then, with this usage and this palpable difference in the two names as valid presumptions against the assumed identifications, we proceed to consider the statement that this prince, in addition to the 10,000 men, sent 2,000 chariots; the inost numerous contribution of this arm of military service made to the league. That Ahab of Israel should furnish 2,000 chariots may at once be pronounced incredible. The traditions and fundamental laws of his kingdom were against their accumulation, and his country was unfavorable to their employment. Of the 1,700 which David captured he retained only 100, and Solomon, at the zenith of his power and prosperity, had but 1,400 chariots (1 Kings ix, 19; x, 26). The Philistines, who held the level country along the sea-coast, had numerons chariots, as had also the peoples to the north of Israel ; but that

* Smith, Eponym Canon, pp. 108, 109, 1. 6, 7; pp. 110, 166.

« PredošláPokračovať »