THE ZOIST. No. VIII. JANUARY, 1845. 1. Intellectual Freedom—its Advocates and Opponents. Teach the people to think. How difficult the task ! The mass of men are the slaves of prejudice; they are afraid to think. In these days of boasted intelligence and vaunted intellectual progress such a change may almost assume the nature of a paradox, but strange as it may appear to the superficial observer—it is nevertheless true. It is really lamentable to reflect on the ignorance which prevails on the most important topics. Few, indeed, recognize their own position in the scale of creation, or appreciate any of the objects which they ought to fulfil during their existence. The search after truth the majority neglect, and yet they suffer severely from the want of that knowledge which would result from free and accurate investigation. We have said that men are afraid to think. Of what arc they afraid ? Afraid of the workings of their own cerebral organism—of the honest accumulation of facts, and of the conscientious conclusions to which they necessarily lead ! Why do they fear ? It is ignorance that makes cowards of them—it is ignorance that leads them to mistrust their own powers, and causes them to consider the honest investigator in the light of a criminal. No man is justified in neglecting the investigation of any subject bearing on his own or his neighbour’s freedom and happiness. To teach the truth, meaning by that expression, not merely the fashionable so­ phisms and orthodox opinions of the fleeting moment, but that which a free, careful, and laborious research convinces us is truth, is the highest duty of man. Let reason on all occasions have full sway. “Truth can bear the light, and error must learn to bear it.” VOL. II. G G 432 Intellectual Freedom, Man should investigate everything. He cannot err by prosecuting careful research, but he does err most seriously by neglecting it. He may arrive at irrational conclusions, but these are to be corrected by renewed research, by a larger collection of facts, and by a more cautious and philo­ sophic generalization. He should place no barriers, for they do but mark the limits to which the abettors of sloth and cowardice would confine men. The pigmy in science may endeavour to check the career of the philosopher, by exclaim­ ing, “ Hitherto shalt thou go, but no fartherand this motto men of confined views may adopt, but the achieve­ ments of the next day or the following year prove the folly of erecting an intellectual cordon, because one resting spot after another must be yielded to the steady and progressive advancement of thought. Reflect ye who would dictate the course which your neighbour should pursue,—ye, who con­ sider your own narrow and ill-matured views as the standard to which all should conform,—ye, who, therefore, arrogate to yourselves that which ye refuse to others, and claim the power to do that which in the next breath ye state man cannot perform. What is the result of your efforts ? What is the doctrine ye preach ? Ye declare that the future is to be impregnated with the errors of the past,—that the follies and weaknesses of bygone days are to be esteemed and nur­ tured, and that the light of knowledge, which nature intends to shine with increasing effulgence, is to a certain extent to be extinguished by the dicta of antiquity and the ignorance and tyranny of authority. With ductile youth how com­ mence ye your task ? Ye teach opinions when ye should be engaged in teaching facts, and then ye practically say, “ it is virtuous to believe this; it is impious to doubt thatand thus the very portal through which all knowledge is said to creep, ye close, and guard by a band of beings who cry down the daring intruder, and yell forth epithets which too frequently scare even those who have ventured to stand erect. Thus ye cultivate fear; ye reduce men to the state of slaves ; ye order them to bow down and tremble ; whereas your duty is to call forth all their intellectual faculties and to bid them arise and examine. Does it not behove, then, the enlightened few to endeavour to remove the hood with which the many are enshrined,—to point out the incubus which is so oppres­ sive and destructive, and to be always prepared by reason and argument to meet the enslaving cry, “ Bow down, bow down,” by the invigorating and humanity-stirring command, Awake ! arise ! examine ! and claim your independence ! But those who advocate this right to investigate all things, its Advocates and Opponents. 433 and to dare to grapple even with presumed “ mysteries,” are often met with a sneer, are told to “ beware of reason,” “the pride of intellect,” &c., and rather to copy the example of the “ faithful follower,” who, with that meekness which is the usual characteristic of an imbecile, accepts other men’s views and interpretations, and plumes himself on his humi­ lity. By this party, blind acquiescence is considered a virtue, honest and manly investigation is construed into a vice, and thus the philosophic doubter is made to rank in the estima­ tion of the world far below the ignorant conformer. What perversion of principle ! What disregard of justice ! We can see no proof of humility in blindly bowing the head to the opinions of any party, and so far from considering this qualification a virtue, we hold it to be a vice which should be exposed and denounced whenever or wherever detected. But the weakness of this party is surpassed by the knavery of another ; we refer to the expediency-mongers. There are many, who with the external demeanour of meekness and submission, merely pretend to embrace certain opinions and doctrines,—men, who take advantage of the intellectual feebleness of their neighbour to gain a certain end, and who willingly prostituted their birthright at the shrine of a pitiful, grovelling, and worldly expediency. Such examples are de­ testable and degrading. Yet such is the course too fre­ quently pursued,—such, alas ! is the pattern which our youth have constantly placed before them. A low morality is practically instilled into them, and consequently, precepts of the greatest beauty and purity exercise no beneficial influence.* Fearless, honest inquiry, conviction, and the hardihood to assert it on all occasions, is not the plan to be followed by the place-seeker, or the popularity-hunter. Such a man must pretend to be humble and meek, timorous and yielding, in a word, unreflecting; and if he unite to these qualifications a little worldly shrewdness, he has entered the * The following is perhaps one of the most disgusting examples to be met with. Dr. Arnold, late Head Master of Rugby School, found his reli­ gious faith assailed by harassing doubts and difficulties. He communicated them to an orthodox friend, and this teacher of moral truth thus writes on the subject:—“The subject of them (Dr. Arnold’s doubts) is that most awful one, on which all very inquisitive reasoning minds are, I believe, most liable to such temptations,—I mean the doctrine of the blessed Trinity. Do not start, my dear Coleridge ; I do not believe that Arnold has any serious scruples of the understanding about it, but it is a defect of his mind that he cannot get rid of a certain feeling of objections,—and particularly when, as he fancies, the bias is so strong upon him to decide one way from interest ; he scruples doing what I advise him, which is to put down the objections by main force whenever they arise in his mind, fearful that in so doing, he shall be violating his conscience for a maintenance sake.” G G 2 434 Intellectual Freedom, path in which his desires may be satisfied,—amidst the de­ teriorating influences which will surround him he may reach the goal he seeksj but it is by the sacrifice of all that should render life dear—for he is become a slave. Emerson says, “ Man is timid and apologetic. He is no longer upright. He dares not say, ‘ I think/ ‘I am/ but quotes some saint or sage.'' This is true. This is the fault with the intellect of the day—it appears to be prostrated. On subjects of the greatest importance, men seem inclined to remain satisfied with the prevalent opinions,—they are afraid to individualize themselves by thought. We contend that there should be no limits to inquiry, but such as our organ­ ism imposes. And how are these limits to be ascertained ? By the multiplicity and paucity of facts, and the strength or weakness of the arguments and conclusions founded on them, nature has given to every man a sure test of the extent to which he should or can proceed. All thoughts, then, should be freely disseminated, for no one can predict the effects they may exercise on the development of new truths, and the con­ sequent advancement of human happiness and enjoyment. But how opposite is the course pursued. Let us inquire—let us doubt. Where is the educator of youth who ventures upon this path, and who, while training the juvenile brain, applies to all branches of knowledge, these two all-important preli­ minaries ? The intellectual faculties, which are progressive in their attainments, are “ cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd /' they are surrounded by difficulties, the erections of arbitrary power and blind selfishness; and to overstep these is the sure pre­ cursor of ruin and worldly degradation. Let the attempt be made, and forthwith the conservators of morality, forgetting their first duty, the encouragement and enforcement of li­ berty of thought, denounce the intruder, and by their con­ servative and insane proceedings virtually declare, that men have no prejudices to uproot—no opinions to be investigated or changed—no moral or physical truths to receive; and that such attempts are dangerous to public morals and the popular *weal.