probably it will elucidate the drift of these foregoing obscure utterances, if we here insert somewhat of our professor’s speculations on symbols. to state his whole doctrine, indeed, were beyond our compass: nowhere is he more mysterious, impalpable, than in this of “fantasy being the organ of the godlike;” and how “man thereby, though based, to all seeming, on the small visible, does nevertheless extend down into the infinite deeps of the invisible, of which invisible, indeed, his life is properly the bodying forth.” let us, omitting these high transcendental aspects of the matter, study to glean (whether from the paper-bags or the printed volume) what little seems logical and practical, and cunningly arrange it into such degree of coherence as it will assume. by way of proem, take the following not injudicious remarks:—

“the benignant efficacies of concealment,” cries our professor, “who shall speak or sing? silence and secrecy! altars might still be raised to them (were this an altar-building time) for universal worship. silence is the element in which great things fashion themselves together; that at length they may emerge, full-formed and majestic, into the daylight of life, which they are thenceforth to rule. not william the silent only, but all the considerable men i have known, and the most undiplomatic and unstrategic of these, forbore to babble of what they were creating and projecting. nay, in thy own mean perplexities, do thou thyself but hold thy tongue for one day: on the morrow, how much clearer are thy purposes and duties; what wreck and rubbish have those mute workmen within thee swept away, when intrusive noises were shut out! speech is too often not, as the frenchman defined it, the art of concealing thought; but of quite stifling and suspending thought, so that there is none to conceal. speech too is great, but not the greatest. as the swiss inscription says: sprechen ist silbern, schweigen ist golden (speech is silvern, silence is golden); or as i might rather express it: speech is of time, silence is of eternity.

“bees will not work except in darkness; thought will not work except in silence: neither will virtue work except in secrecy. let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth! neither shalt thou prate even to thy own heart of ‘those secrets known to all.’ is not shame (schaam) the soil of all virtue, of all good manners and good morals? like other plants, virtue will not grow unless its root be hidden, buried from the eye of the sun. let the sun shine on it, nay do but look at it privily thyself, the root withers, and no flower will glad thee. o my friends, when we view the fair clustering flowers that overwreathe, for example, the marriage-bower, and encircle man’s life with the fragrance and hues of heaven, what hand will not smite the foul plunderer that grubs them up by the roots, and, with grinning, grunting satisfaction, shows us the dung they flourish in! men speak much of the printing press with its newspapers: du himmel! what are these to clothes and the tailor’s goose?

“of kin to the so incalculable influences of concealment, and connected with still greater things, is the wondrous agency of symbols. in a symbol there is concealment and yet revelation; here therefore, by silence and by speech acting together, comes a double significance. and if both the speech be itself high, and the silence fit and noble, how expressive will their union be! thus in many a painted device, or simple seal-emblem, the commonest truth stands out to us proclaimed with quite new emphasis.

“for it is here that fantasy with her mystic wonderland plays into the small prose domain of sense, and becomes incorporated therewith. in the symbol proper, what we can call a symbol, there is ever, more or less distinctly and directly, some embodiment and revelation of the infinite; the infinite is made to blend itself with the finite, to stand visible, and as it were, attainable there. by symbols, accordingly, is man guided and commanded, made happy, made wretched: he everywhere finds himself encompassed with symbols, recognized as such or not recognized: the universe is but one vast symbol of god; nay if thou wilt have it, what is man himself but a symbol of god; is not all that he does symbolical; a revelation to sense of the mystic god-given force that is in him; a ‘gospel of freedom,’ which he, the ‘messias of nature,’ preaches, as he can, by act and word? not a hut he builds but is the visible embodiment of a thought; but bears visible record of invisible things; but is, in the transcendental sense, symbolical as well as real.”

“man,” says the professor elsewhere, in quite antipodal contrast with these high-soaring delineations, which we have here cut short on the verge of the inane, “man is by birth somewhat of an owl. perhaps, too, of all the owleries that ever possessed him, the most owlish, if we consider it, is that of your actually existing motive–millwrights. fantastic tricks enough man has played, in his time; has fancied himself to be most things, down even to an animated heap of glass: but to fancy himself a dead iron–balance for weighing pains and pleasures on, was reserved for this his latter era. there stands he, his universe one huge manger, filled with hay and thistles to be weighed against each other; and looks long-eared enough. alas, poor devil! spectres are appointed to haunt him: one age he is hag-ridden, bewitched; the next, priest-ridden, befooled; in all ages, bedevilled. and now the genius of mechanism smothers him worse than any nightmare did; till the soul is nigh choked out of him, and only a kind of digestive, mechanic life remains. in earth and in heaven he can see nothing but mechanism; has fear for nothing else, hope in nothing else: the world would indeed grind him to pieces; but cannot he fathom the doctrine of motives, and cunningly compute these, and mechanize them to grind the other way?

“were he not, as has been said, purblinded by enchantment, you had but to bid him open his eyes and look. in which country, in which time, was it hitherto that man’s history, or the history of any man, went on by calculated or calculable ‘motives’? what make ye of your christianities, and chivalries, and reformations, and marseillaise hymns, and reigns of terror? nay, has not perhaps the motive-grinder himself been in love? did he never stand so much as a contested election? leave him to time, and the medicating virtue of nature.”

“yes, friends,” elsewhere observes the professor, “not our logical, mensurative faculty, but our imaginative one is king over us; i might say, priest and prophet to lead us heavenward; or magician and wizard to lead us hellward. nay, even for the basest sensualist, what is sense but the implement of fantasy; the vessel it drinks out of? ever in the dullest existence there is a sheen either of inspiration or of madness (thou partly hast it in thy choice, which of the two), that gleams in from the circumambient eternity, and colors with its own hues our little islet of time. the understanding is indeed thy window, too clear thou canst not make it; but fantasy is thy eye, with its color-giving retina, healthy or diseased. have not i myself known five hundred living soldiers sabred into crows’-meat for a piece of glazed cotton, which they called their flag; which, had you sold it at any market-cross, would not have brought above three groschen? did not the whole hungarian nation rise, like some tumultuous moon-stirred atlantic, when kaiser joseph pocketed their iron crown; an implement, as was sagaciously observed, in size and commercial value little differing from a horse-shoe? it is in and through symbols that man, consciously or unconsciously, lives, works, and has his being: those ages, moreover, are accounted the noblest which can the best recognize symbolical worth, and prize it the highest. for is not a symbol ever, to him who has eyes for it, some dimmer or clearer revelation of the godlike?

“of symbols, however, i remark farther, that they have both an extrinsic and intrinsic value; oftenest the former only. what, for instance, was in that clouted shoe, which the peasants bore aloft with them as ensign in their bauernkrieg (peasants’ war)? or in the wallet-and-staff round which the netherland gueux, glorying in that nickname of beggars, heroically rallied and prevailed, though against king philip himself? intrinsic significance these had none: only extrinsic; as the accidental standards of multitudes more or less sacredly uniting together; in which union itself, as above noted, there is ever something mystical and borrowing of the godlike. under a like category, too, stand, or stood, the stupidest heraldic coats-of-arms; military banners everywhere; and generally all national or other sectarian costumes and customs: they have no intrinsic, necessary divineness, or even worth; but have acquired an extrinsic one. nevertheless through all these there glimmers something of a divine idea; as through military banners themselves, the divine idea of duty, of heroic daring; in some instances of freedom, of right. nay the highest ensign that men ever met and embraced under, the cross itself, had no meaning save an accidental extrinsic one.

“another matter it is, however, when your symbol has intrinsic meaning, and is of itself fit that men should unite round it. let but the godlike manifest itself to sense, let but eternity look, more or less visibly, through the time–figure (zeitbild)! then is it fit that men unite there; and worship together before such symbol; and so from day to day, and from age to age, superadd to it new divineness.

“of this latter sort are all true works of art: in them (if thou know a work of art from a daub of artifice) wilt thou discern eternity looking through time; the godlike rendered visible. here too may an extrinsic value gradually superadd itself: thus certain iliads, and the like, have, in three thousand years, attained quite new significance. but nobler than all in this kind are the lives of heroic god-inspired men; for what other work of art is so divine? in death too, in the death of the just, as the last perfection of a work of art, may we not discern symbolic meaning? in that divinely transfigured sleep, as of victory, resting over the beloved face which now knows thee no more, read (if thou canst for tears) the confluence of time with eternity, and some gleam of the latter peering through.

“highest of all symbols are those wherein the artist or poet has risen into prophet, and all men can recognize a present god, and worship the same: i mean religious symbols. various enough have been such religious symbols, what we call religions; as men stood in this stage of culture or the other, and could worse or better body forth the godlike: some symbols with a transient intrinsic worth; many with only an extrinsic. if thou ask to what height man has carried it in this manner, look on our divinest symbol: on jesus of nazareth, and his life, and his biography, and what followed therefrom. higher has the human thought not yet reached: this is christianity and christendom; a symbol of quite perennial, infinite character; whose significance will ever demand to be anew inquired into, and anew made manifest.

“but, on the whole, as time adds much to the sacredness of symbols, so likewise in his progress he at length defaces, or even desecrates them; and symbols, like all terrestrial garments, wax old. homer’s epos has not ceased to be true; yet it is no longer our epos, but shines in the distance, if clearer and clearer, yet also smaller and smaller, like a receding star. it needs a scientific telescope, it needs to be reinterpreted and artificially brought near us, before we can so much as know that it was a sun. so likewise a day comes when the runic thor, with his eddas, must withdraw into dimness; and many an african mumbo–jumbo and indian pawaw be utterly abolished. for all things, even celestial luminaries, much more atmospheric meteors, have their rise, their culmination, their decline.

“small is this which thou tellest me, that the royal sceptre is but a piece of gilt wood; that the pyx has become a most foolish box, and truly, as ancient pistol thought, ‘of little price.’ a right conjurer might i name thee, couldst thou conjure back into these wooden tools the divine virtue they once held.

“of this thing, however, be certain: wouldst thou plant for eternity, then plant into the deep infinite faculties of man, his fantasy and heart; wouldst thou plant for year and day, then plant into his shallow superficial faculties, his self-love and arithmetical understanding, what will grow there. a hierarch, therefore, and pontiff of the world will we call him, the poet and inspired maker; who, prometheus-like, can shape new symbols, and bring new fire from heaven to fix it there. such too will not always be wanting; neither perhaps now are. meanwhile, as the average of matters goes, we account him legislator and wise who can so much as tell when a symbol has grown old, and gently remove it.

“when, as the last english coronation 3 i was preparing,” concludes this wonderful professor, “i read in their newspapers that the ‘champion of england,’ he who has to offer battle to the universe for his new king, had brought it so far that he could now ‘mount his horse with little assistance,’ i said to myself: here also we have a symbol well-nigh superannuated. alas, move whithersoever you may, are not the tatters and rags of superannuated worn-out symbols (in this ragfair of a world) dropping off everywhere, to hoodwink, to halter, to tether you; nay, if you shake them not aside, threatening to accumulate, and perhaps produce suffocation?”

3 that of george iv. — ed.