it seems to furnish a very powerful reason why the great duty on which so much depends, should be placed on its true grounds, circumscribed within its appropriate limits, and vindicated against the plausible objections of the sophist. If this view be just, it thence follows that no system of ethics can be complete which overlooks the great fundamental duty, not only of thinking for ourselves, but also of training the intellectual powers by which such thinking is conducted. Hence, in a treatise on Moral Science, it should be pointed out that it is every man's duty to think for himself, as well as to prepare himself, by the proper culture and training of his mind, for the due discharge of this all-important obligation. For as this duty lies at the very root of all mental development, and of all individual excellence; so the best interests of mankind require that a place should be vindicated for it in the science of ethics.

We are also clearly of opinion, that a complete system of ethics should contain a vindication of the sanctions of the moral law. Indeed, a law without a sanction is no law at all; it is merely a request, or counsel, or advice. It is only when a sanction, either of promised good or of threatened evil, is attached to an injunction, that it becomes a law. Hence, every theory of moral law must be radically defective, which merely sets forth and illustrates its precepts, without an exposition and vindication of its sanctions. In a complete system of ethics, the sanctions of the great law of virtue or moral goodness should be discussed, and especially the doctrine of the eternity of future punishments.

But, although the science of ethics really embraces, as the sun does its beams, all the principles and precepts usually arranged under the head of practical ethics; yet is the branch of practical ethics, properly so-called, an essential part of moral philosophy. This branch of the science, however, is something very different from what is usually intended by the expression, practical ethics. The theory of ethics sets forth the pattern, model, or radiant image of moral goodness; practical ethics teaches the art, or method, of transforming the mind and character, and bringing them into a conformity with that model or image. This view of the nature of practical ethics, opens, it is

true, a wide field for investigation; and if this should, in certain directions, trench on the domain of theology, this is no valid objection to its scope or design. For moral science, whether written by a heathen sage or Christian divine, is not a Godless philosophy.

No other method, we believe, can be found for the restoration of the soul to its original rectitude and purity, than that made known by Christ and his Apostles. For, although these teachers had no thought of philosophy, yet is the.e, in their plan for the restoration and perfection of the soul, a depth of insight, and a wonderful beauty of adaptation, toward which none of the conceptions of human wisdom make the most distant approximation. As this revealed method has been found, in practice, the only efficient one, so, in theory, it may be shown to be the only rational or philosophical one; and to show this, is the high office of the philosophy of practical ethics. Every system of ethics is, indeed, radically defective, which does not teach the art, as well as the theory, of virtuous living; or, in other words, which does not show how the human mind may be raised and sustained in the practice of moral goodness, as well as set before it the perfect idea or image of such goodness.

ART. II.-The Life of David Garrick. From Original Family Papers and numerous Published and Unpublished Sources. By Percy Fitzgerald, M. A., F. S. A. London: Tinsley Brothers.

1868.

It has been often said, that biography is the saddest department of literature, and our observation inclines us to believe that the remark is, in a general sense, true. But the life of David Garrick forms an exception to the rule. combined such brilliant professional and social

Few men have success with so

much of individual happiness. But though eminently happy in his life, Garrick has not been so fortunate in his biographers. Indeed no man has ever been more unfairly represented than he who, during his life, possessed the rare faculty of winning all hearts, and who, at the time of his death, was the most popular man in England. Contemporary biography is seldom unprejudiced; and until recently the only accounts we possessed of Garrick's life and career, except a few short memoirs, were those by Murphy, an Irishman, and Davies, a Scotchman; men who were not only his contemporaries, but who, by the circumstances of their position, were singularly unfitted for the task. Arthur Murphy and Tom Davies had both been subordinate actors in Garrick's theatre, and were associated with the great comedian only in a professional capacity; relations not at all favorable to an impartial judgment. As might have been anticipated, these biographies are confined almost entirely to the theatrical portions of Garrick's life, and, even in this point of view, are very inaccurate and incomplete.

Independently of his wonderful histrionic talent and success, the life of Garrick is so full of interest, that a history of his professional career only, is necessarily very unsatisfactory. He was intimately connected with all the eminent men of his time; he was the chosen companion and friend of nobles and commoners; and his society was eagerly sought by poets, wits, authors, artists. and men of cultivation and genius. Beyond and above all this, he was himself so richly endowed with those qualities which command respect and esteem, that, as Stockdale has well said, 'He was as great in GARRICK as in LEAR.'

There is still another point of interest, which lends an additional charm to the history of his life; we mean the beautiful and romantic attachment that existed between his wife and himself. In every human heart there is a tender place for a love story. That is pre-eminently the 'one touch of nature' which makes the whole world kin;' and seldom has the pen of historian, or novelist, recorded the story of a love so true and constant as that of David Garrick and Eva Maria, his wife. Besides the injustice which the memory of Garrick has suf

fered at the hands of his biographers, there exists another cause why the great actor has been so misunderstood. Samuel Johnson, who never quite forgave his pupil for being more successful in life than himself, seldom lost an opportunity of saying spiteful things about 'Little Davy;' all of which have been duly recorded by Boswell in a biography, which is more read than any book of the kind in the language. Thus, Garrick has been suspected of 'stinginess; a failing with which Johnson does not scruple to charge him, although greatly benefitted by the actor's generosity on more than one occasion. This accusation has been urged by other detractors from Garrick's fame, but only by men who were notoriously envious of his position; . and it is worthy of note, that during a long career of unprecedented good fortune, in which he was beset by every kind of temptation, this is the only fault which even jealousy has detected in his character. A history of his life is the best refutation of this slander. It is evident, that he was careful and methodical about little things, only that he might give more freely and liberally of his abundance; a trait which has distinguished men most celebrated for generosity.

Some one has said, that the saddest sight he ever witnessed was that of Samuel Johnson weeping bitterly at Garrick's grave. May not the old man have repented in that sad hour of some of his hard sayings? How often when we weep for the lost are the tears of remorse mingled with those of regret!

Mr. Percy Fitzgerald, the latest of Garrick's biographers, claims to have had especial advantages for his work, and to have been led to the task by a real fascination for the subject.' Knowing that a certain amount of enthusiasm is one of the surest elements of success, we were led to a perusal of his book with the hope of finding a corresponding fascination in his treatment of the subject. But the two ponderous volumes of loosely narrated facts are a failure as far as any special interest is concerned; although the biographer is more just in his estimate of Garrick as a man than any of his predecessors. As there are writers who, by mere charm of manner, impart interest to the poorest materials, so there are others with the richest stores of knowledge who never rise above the level of

prosaic commonplace. This is just Mr. Fitzgerald's fault, or rather his misfortune. He has conscientiously discharged his self-appointed task, but he is wanting in talent as a raconteur, and the most spirited incidents of the actor's life are rendered flat by his rambling, disconnected way of relating them.

When we consider the stock from which Garrick sprung, we can in some degree account for the rare combination of fine qualities which characterized the man. His father was of noble Huguenot blood; and it is probable, that to this French element he was indebted for his vivacity, tact, and exquisite grace. His mother was the daughter of an English clergyman and an Irish lady, and it is not unlikely that he inherited from the Irish side of the house the humor for which he was so justly celebrated, and his ardent, generous nature; while from his English ancestry came the calm dignity which he preserved intact throughout his eventful career, and the prudence and sagacity which made the best use of all his good gifts.

Peter Garrick, or de la Garrigue, as the name was originally spelled, the father of David, was born in Bordeaux. While quite an infant he was brought to England by his parents, who left France in order to escape the persecution of the Huguenots. When he attained his majority, this young soldier of fortune entered the English army as ensign of dragoons, and was soon after ordered to Lichfield. Here he spent many years of his life, and here he met and married Arabella Clough, the daughter of the clergyman of whom mention has already been made. This marriage took place November 13th, 1707. Several years after, Peter, now Captain Garrick, was stationed at Hereford on recruiting service, and it was during the temporary residence of his family and himself at this place, that David, his third child, was born, February 19th, 1716. So, though Lichfield was the scene of the childhood and youth of the English Roscius, it cannot claim the honor of having been his birth-place.

David was remarkable as a boy for his brightness and vivacity; and we find that he began early to practice the sweet courtesy, or 'benevolence in little things,' as Chesterfield so happily expresses it, which was one of the chief charms of hist character. When he was about fifteen, his father, who had