The Best Pictures for the least Money at Hamilton's.
peak- l the twenty had quite n was
not of came later prepreces of iliana, a; Illneso-
this ordered is near usually
Inter-
by all
aid to
them,
the 1st
but
imself
Griwi withi ban to be r the elabo t ban diately injoya
set ser-
tain on
on his
the
him up
the
the
by
e time needed came winning would man at may schemewhen following elect: universi-univernt; G.iversity, after the amdends much session a sin to the man was mine die
away by un iim- uevented successant flows we inventive mainly be the time wind speaker d in the a voice the pro-
The Philosophy of Inequality
BY MARY UNDERSTATE GRATON.
PRIIZE INTER-STATE QUESTION. By Eo H. Heures, Westport University, Ohio. Society is regulated by two laws. One is inherent; the other, adopted. One is immutable; the other, variable. One is self-executive; the other must be executed by chosen means. Inherent law establishes the fact; adopted law supplies the conditions. The one says—"Man must think," the other—"Man must proclaim thoughts that prove loyalty to government." The mutual relation of these laws often leads to a false classification. Inherent law has been declared legalized custom and captious minds have clamored for its annulment. Futile are all endeavors to make better what Omniscience has made best. Reformers propose a visionary scheme of government as a substitute for the plan inaugurated of God. Prominent among their attempts is the one whose object is the repeal of the laws of inequality.
Social conditions are the prolific source of rebellion against imparity. Wildows' homes, orphans' asylums and almshouses, stand contrasted with unbroken households, cheerful nurseries and brown-stone fronts. Men look indignantly upon this picture of social life. Suffering Lazarus excites their deepest sympathy. Purple-clad Dives bears the odium of existing conditions. Pity overpowers reason and dictates the cry: "inequality is a product of custom, not of necessity. Custom must be brought into harmony with justice." Influenced by this thought our enthusiast gives free rein to daring fancy and becomes an apostle of the gospel of equality.
Is general inequality avoidable? Nature, in the language of analogy, answers, "No," and makes earnest protest against universal equality. "To him who holds communion with her visible forms, she speaks a various language." Variety is her law. The relations among her products are expressed by the sign of inequality. Shrubs, trees; bills, mountains; rivers, oceans; islands, continents—all speak of inequality in the earth's structure. Anemone and oak grow in the same soil and derive vitality from the same elements. But nature is none the less beautiful because of her lack of uniformity. Her variety, rather, is her charm. She is none the less useful because here she rises into lofty mountains and there extends herself into rolling prairies. Thus society's analogue declares inequality to be an inherent law of human relations.
Imagination builds lofty castles; experience levels them to the ground. Test the theory of universal equality by the results of its operation. Its advocates speak eloquently of this Utopia, and, considering their system only in its inauguration, fancy that their dream may become a reality. Not candid, not truly philosophical, they study introduction apart from conclusion. A factitious sentiment results, leading to the advocacy of an impartial division of all material wealth. Like all other false doctrines this one includes only sufficient truth to render it plausible. An inspection of human character and environment betrays the fallacy. This man is shrewd and industrious; that man, stupid and thriftless. This man is deterred from labor by disease and
accident; that man is advanced to riches by health and good fortune. This man maintains a large and expensive family; that one supports himself alone. This man develops and utilizes all his powers; that one wastes his life in indulgence and sloth Condition will eventually respond to character and culture. For, inequality of ability produces inequality of attainment. Furthermore, the theory is impracticable because not all occupations are equal either in duties exacted or interests involved. The difficulty and general utility of any employment determine the remuneration of its followers. An innate sense of justice claims premium for superiority.
But a doctrine declared false by history and by reason, demands fertility in expedients. The charm in the discovery of this Elysium must not be broken by the cold logic of facts. Seeing that their empire of equality is not yet established, the upholders of this theory suggest an annual redistribution. This plan would destroy all incentive to labor. No man would distribute the fruits of his honest toil among the idle and vicious. Ardor of enterprise would no longer characterize our commercial system. For commerce admits of but one equality—that of honest competition. Human nature presents an insuperable barrier to the progress of this reform. Is it eagerness to uplift humanity that has led to this idea of the division of wealth? Is it the fancied ignominy of poverty that has stirred hearts to their deptus and incited the pronunciation of this view? Or is it malicious envy that overcame the instincts of the nobler self and demanded wealth that has been gained by the sweat of others' brows? Whatever motive, the result is invariably the same. Although these pretended reforms have been rendered attractive by rhetorical beauty; although powers of vivid description have presented the moral and social advantages of this glittering empire; yet common sense, the preventive of continual revolution, has overcome its flashy rival and fancy has surrendered to practical truth. The deceptive currents of imagination have whirled men into this channel "of appearance where naught but fallacy reigneth." Enthusiasm, unfounded and unbounded, has caused bold statement, reckless conspiracy and desperate attack against existing institutions. The scaffold and the guillotine have changed imaginary into real ignominy; centuries will not obliterate the sad memorials of man's folly. The hopeless experiment has merely displayed the monumental ignorance of those who detest, denounce, defy the Providential order. The tempest of impulse is at last stilled under the calming influence of cool judgment. He who properly respects himself, now asks nothing more than a hearty recognition of his manhood. Men wisely conclude that a ship with a nobler device upon her streaming banner will never plow the waves of the dark and dreary social sea.
We study mankind by comparison and contrast. We begin by discovering resemblances and end by contemplating diversities of character. This fact is conspicuously illustrated in our own America. The profound
German, the vivacious Frenchman, the strong-minded Englishman, the witty Irishman and the honest Scotchman—all have contributed to the composition of the national character. Every American audience is a world in miniature. Often in the veins of one person flows mingled the blood of the five great races. The qualities that distinguish men and those that distinguish nations combine to produce inequality in human endowments and requirements. This inequality is as prophetic as it is historic. In one there burn fires of sparkling imagination; in another there surge powers of resistless argumentation. In one there glows the genius for music or art; in the another, the genius for invention or handiwork. Whence arise this state of inequality? Equalize conditions, it is said, and you equalize character. The answer is condition is rather the product of character. The true, divine philosophy of inequality is found in the fact that varieties of opportunity for individual activity and the interaction of diversified talents supply the only conditions under which human progress is possible. Behold now the results of that innovation which establishes equality among men. Let a capable power issue this decree, "All men shall be equal. There shall be no poor, no rich; no weak, no strong; no ignorant, no learned." What would result? The outcome would be the creation of individual independence. No one can be dependent upon his equal. In fact, the extent of our dependence upon any one is determined by his relation to us and by his superior power and means. Our dependence upon the Infinite is, therefore, absolute. Independence among men gives rise to universal brotherhood. Establish equality and you sweep away influence, the greatest agency in the world's amelioration. Influence implies inferiority. One cannot influence him who is in all respects his equal. Upon this condition friendship's foundation is laid. Love is the result of the soul's influence. Not even this divine principle could exist under the dominion of equality. Ordain independence and you destroy sympathy. There could be no exciter of sympathy if there were no inequality of suffering and hardship. The breaking of this golden band would mark the dawn of an era of supreme selfishness and stoicism. Equality would expel from the minds of men all thought of laudable enterprise; for under its reign there could be no greatness. No name would shine with the luster of renown. No heart would thrill under the commanding influence of any historic character. Providence being merely general, there could be no man whose marked genius and splendid service in times of emergency seem to indicate providential dealing. The regime of equality would annihilate many practical moral virtues; for the possibility of evil gives to righteousness the coronal glory. If there were no penury, no pain, what would become of fortitude, patience, resignation? If there were no greatness, no wealth, what would become of benevolence, charity, human pity? If there were no luxury, what would become of temperance? If there were no power, what would become of justice? Under the proposed system hearts
could never prove their sterling coinage. The withering breeze of selfishness would blast forever pure generosity, noble self-denial and heroic devotion. Under the present system the surface of character may seem chilled by worldly cares, or etiquette may cultivate the art of pleasing, yet the warmth of human sympathy lives in the depths of the coldest heart, and at times the dormant fires blaze forth and betray the sympathetic nature.
The perversion of the principle of inequality arouses opposition to the principle itself. It may be said that inequality necessitates power and that power is often misapplied. True it is that "Man's inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn." But equally true it is that gravitation ceases not her operation even when life is imperiled.
"When the weak mountain trembles from on high, Shall gravitation cease if you go by?"
Ah! True it is that power is not always indicative of merit. True it is that misguided power has baffled reform, prevented education, neutralized morality, stifled conscience, silenced the pleading tones of religion, and given fearful force to ignorance and vice. Yet let it be remembered that power, although the father, is yet the conqueror, of persecution. For when the legions of evil have been routed and the emblems of victory have graced the banners of right, then have been aroused the energies of strong souls and power has become the ally of truth.
What, then, is the proper deduction from the existence of inequality? Not, that any man should be enslaved, but rather that all men should be free to exercise those "inalienable rights" to which nature entitles them. Plato may write of the model "Republic;" Moore may find in "Eutopia" a political and social paradise; Bacon may describe a "New Atlantis"—but society will never be regenerated until the dawn of the joyous morn when the heralds of peace shall proclaim the universal equality, not of accident nor of artificial conditions, but of moral privilege and of enlightened conscience and shall announce as the criterion of every man's conduct—
"To thine own self be true,
And it must follow as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."
Philological Club.
At the meeting last Friday night Mr. Sterling gave an account of a reprint of an old English translation of the second book of Herodotus, edited by Andrew Lang. To this reprint the editor has prefixed two essays, "The Religion of Herodotus" and "The Good Faith of Herodotus." In the latter he makes a very spirited defense of Herodotus against the arguments of Prof. Sayce, by whom the good faith of Herodotus is impugned. He takes up Sayce's argument in detail, and shows that while Herodotus was not a historian in the modern sense, he cannot be charged with bad faith. His history contains a wealth of stories and legends which a more careful historian would not have transmitted to us, and he is one of the most delightful narrators in the world. Mr. Sterling read a selection to show the style of the reprinted translation, and also Mr. Lang's letter to Herodotus in his "Letters to Dead Authors."
The members of the Club then went into the Classical Museum, where in the presence of the cast Mr. Wilcox spoke of the Venus of Melos and its proposed restorations. They may be grouped under three heads: those which restore her with another figure, Ares, to her left, those which place an apple in her upraised left hand; and those which make her hold a shield in her left or in both hands. Now the inscribed plinth found with the statue most likely belongs to it, while the hand bearing an apple does not. Hence the first method of restoration is excluded, and the second almost certainly also. Hence, too, if Venus held a shield, it must have been supported on a column by her left side. Her unfinished condition on that side argues that that side was hidden from view. Mr. Overbeck thinks she must be restored in this way, holding up the shield with her left hand and her drapery with her right. Prof. Heydemann of Halle lately has proposed a restoration with an apple in her left hand and a trophy to her right. But this combines two ideas which do not belong together. Hence Overbeck's restoration is probably correct.
Miss Hunnecut spoke of a Greek parallel of Washington—Timonleon of Corrinth. They were both republican leaders, the one restoring an old state after misrule, the other setting up a new state. Timoleon was sent by the city of Corrinth to help Syracuse, the daughter city, rid herself of tyrants and foreign enemies. He succeeded wonderfully, making Syracuse and all Greek Sicily free and independent, and then became a simple citizen. Like Washington his greatness was of the quiet, modest kind. Timoleon is more distinctly a deliverer than Washington, as the rule of the mother-country of America was not on a level with the tyrannies of Sicily. Washington is more distinctly a founder than Timoleon. The difference in the work of the two men arises from the difference in the relation of the two colonies to the mother-country. The bond between America and Great Britain was one of dependence, which Washington severed; between Syracuse and Corrinth, one of attachment and reverence, which Timoleon tightened. Because the American colonies were not free from the beginning like Syracuse, the older England in Europe and the younger England in America could never be to each other what the older Hellas in Greece and the younger Hellas in Sicily were.
THE business men of the city are responding to the committee on field day prize with even more liberality than was expected. If the students do their share prizes of importance are now assured for every contest. Every man in the University who is at all proficient in any sport should practice up and be prepared to help the thing along as well as cover himself all over with glory. We can tell you now that this is going to be the most successful field day that K. S. U. has ever had. It will be some credit to be a victor in any one of the sports.
.