Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

written scene, and very affecting, but it does not contain a single word of truth. No one has been killed by a gorilla within the memory of man in any part of the gorilla country that either M. Du Chaillu or myself have visited.

10. When I asked Etia and some other natives whether the gorilla in anger beat its breast like a drum, they all laughed uproariously, and evidently considered if a very foolish question. foolish question. "But Paulo says so," said I. "Yes," said they, laughing still more loudly; "Quenqueza told him that." In the preface to his recent work, M. Du Chaillu expressly says that he has met with fresh evidence to support that statement. What is that evidence? Did the male gorillas which he encountered beat their breasts? No; but a young gorilla he had in captivity used to thump the ground and his legs with his fists. I shall be happy to accept all that M. Du Chaillu actually saw during his last journey, but I really cannot, in the teeth of strong evidence, accept such an inference as that.

With respect to the gorilla's ferocity and its method of attack, it is not very easy to decide. Before M. Du Chaillu wrote his book, the American missionaries, Wilson, Savage, and Ford, had described the animal's fury in language similar to-sometimes identical with that which he used himself. They represent

ed the ape 66 as never running from man (Savage); attacking natives without provocation, approaching the hunter always on his hind feet (Ford); crushing a musket-barrel between his teeth, seizing the hunter with the palms of his hands, dashing him upon the ground, and there lacerating him with his tushes." M. Du Chaillu added nothing purely of his own, except the musical feature, which has already been disposed of.

Now, I heard these stories often enough; but when I examined the genuine gorilla-hunters, they told a very different tale. They gave me distinctly to understand that the gorilla is an exceedingly shy animal, keen of hearing and of scent, very difficult to get near. They told me that as long as I would persist in wearing boots (which they thought were made for ornamental purposes), I should never be able to tread softly enough to get a shot at him. They also have a protest: "Leave ngina alone, and

ngina leave you alone." But the most conclusive proof that the ferocity of the gorilla was exaggerated by M. Du Chaillu in his first book is advanced by M. Du Chaillu himself in his second one. During his recent travels he was three times in the proximity of a male gorilla, and each time the bloodthirsty animal ran away. "Before I had crossed the hollow, I saw on the opposite slope a monstrous gorilla, standing erect and looking directly toward me. . . The huge beast stared at me for about two minutes, and then, without uttering any cry, moved off to the shade of the forest, running nimbly on his hands and feet."

And again: "An old male, apparently the guardian of the flock, alone made a bold stand, and glared at me through an opening of the foliage. . . . In my unarmed condition I began to think of retracing my steps; but the rest of my party coming up at the moment with clatter of voices altered the state of things. The shaggy monster raised a ery of alarm, scrambled to the ground through the entangled lianas that were around the tree-trunk, and soon disappeared into the jungle."

On a third occasion he heard a gorilla roaring, and hurried through the thicket toward the sound. "Suddenly the roaring ceased. I stopped, thinking that it was a male which was perhaps preparing to advance on me; but I listened in vain the beast had fled."

If the reader will compare M. Du Chaillu's two works, he will see that the gorilla of 1867 is a very different animal from the gorilla of 1861, and that M. Du Chaillu upon this point has saved me from the trouble of refuting him. As for the gorilla attacking on its hind feet: the ape can stand upright, that is generally allowed; but nobody would venture to deny that it cannot move much more nimbly on all fours. Why, then, should it adopt the erect posture in order to attack? Why should it assume an attitude in which its movements must be awkward and constrained, at a moment when it wishes to exert to the utmost its strength and its agility? If, indeed, as M. Du Chaillu asserted in his first book, it uses "its arms as its weapons of offence just as a man or a prizefighter would," why then it can be readily understood. But this is not the case.

Its hands are for purposes of prehension; its teeth are its real weapons of offence, as in all the other apes. Even in his last work, M. Du Chaillu talks vaguely about gorillas breaking arms and tearing out entrails. But where are the proofs? There are no dead men on record, as I said before, and there are only two wounded ones. Mr. Wilson saw one in the Gaboon; the calf of his leg was nearly torn off. It may be inferred, I presume, that the gorilla was not standing upright when he did that. The second case came under my own eyes. Etia, whom I have frequently mentioned, had his left hand completely crippled, and the marks of teeth indented on his wrist. I asked him to show me how the gorilla attacked him. I was to be the hunter, he the gorilla. He went to a little distance; I pretended to shoot; he rushed at me on all fours, seized my wrist with one of his hands, dragged it to his mouth, bit it, and then made off. So, he said, the ngina had done to him. Now M. Du Chaillu, who mentions Etia, and speaks of him as a fine old man (he was the most hideous negro that I ever saw), says nothing of this crippled wrist. Why? Because it would have been the lie direct to his scull-crushing, breastbone-breaking, entrail-scooping theories, and would have read very tamely after the hunter whom he killed in such picturesque style. So he suppressed the fact. Removing certain scenic incidents, there remains in M. Du Chaillu's work a large residue of truth. But, in spite of the solemn manner in which the names of Owen and Murchison are now being paraded in advertisements, it is no better an authority upon apes than Les Travailleurs de la Mer upon mollusca; M. Du Chaillu's gorilla is, in fact, entitled to precisely the same position in zoology as Victor Hugo's pieuvre.

M. Du Chaillu asserts in the preface to his recent work that most of the principal statements in his former one which were sneered at by his critics "have been already confirmed by other travellers in the same part of Africa." This extraordinary statement was originally made by Professor Owen; I have now replied to it; and if any evidence of importance besides my own has been procured, it should be placed at once before the public.

It is a cherished idea of Professor Owen's that I lived on the coast when I was in the gorilla country and enjoyed myself. He was once rash enough to express this idea in a letter to the Times. I contrived to refute and even to silence him by stating briefly where I had been. But as the wildest accusation from a gentleman of such eminence deserves a careful reply, I will now quote from a letter written to me by the Rev. W. Walker, to whom I mentioned the circumstance, the following passage: "Whatever Professor Owen or any one else may say about your dawdling and resting in safety at the coast settlements, I can say that your tireless activity kept me in constant fear for your life. And this was the feeling of every one who knew your habits of work. If any man could have the means of knowing the correctness of Du Chaillu's statements, you had the means."

In another part of this letter (which I can of course produce if required) he says: "I have never met with a man in this region, who had the means of knowing anything about it, who believed that Du Chaillu had killed a gorilla."

These are my credentials, and from one whom M. Du Chaillu has recognized as an authority upon the question of his veracity. Now what are the best relating to that question which he has been able to obtain during a period of six years? This quotation from a speech of Sir Roderick Murchison, which is put forth in advertisements as if it were a piece of important evidence: "M. Du Chaillu has. . . . by his clear and animated descriptions convinced us that he has been as close an eye-witness of the habits of the gorilla and his associates as he has proved himself to be their successful assailant."

Now what does Sir Roderick Murchison know about the gorilla? Of what consequence is it whether he has been convinced or not? And who are the us? Does he mean scientific men in general, or only Professor Owen and himself?

Sir Roderick has shown himself a generous and steadfast friend of M. Du Chaillu, and no doubt sincerely believes in his gorilla exploits and revelations of Central-African geography. But this is a question of science, not of sentiment. The president of a scientific society

should maintain the position of a judge; Sir Roderick has during this controversy descended to that of a special pleader. The public is warned that upon all questions in which M. Du Chaillu is concerned Sir Roderick's opinions must be received with caution, and that the one published above is absolutely worthless.

As for M. Du Chaillu himself, he has done much to redeem the grave literary offence of which he has been guilty.

The difficulties which he must have overcome in penetrating to Ashango Land can be fully appreciated by those only who have travelled in Equatorial Africa. Nothing that appears in this article should be used to diminish the lustre of that achievement; but all its lustre shall not gild the iniquity which I now expose.

LOUIS ADOLPHE THIERS.

IN connection with the portrait of this distinguished statesman and author, we present our readers with a brief sketch of his life, for which we are mainly indebted to Appleton's Cyclopædia :

"LOUIS ADOLPHE THIERS was born in Marseilles, April 16, 1797. The son of a poor workman, through the patronage of some influential relations he was admitted to the college of his native town, afterward studied law at Aix, where he became acquainted with M. Mignet, and was graduated in 1820, but instead of following the profession devoted his attention to history and philosophy. After winning a prize at the academy of Marseilles for his panegyric of Vauvenargues, he went to Paris with Mignet in Sept. 1821, and two months later, through Laffitte's patronage, became a contributor to the Constitutionnel. His quick perception and versatility, ready wit and sprightliness of style, boldness of attack and ability as a controversialist, admirably fitted him for the daily labor of a journalist, and he soon reached a leading position. A shrewd political writer and literary critic, he proved also a skilful judge of the fine arts in his Salon de 1822 (8vo, Paris, 1822), and an elegant tourist in Les Pyrenees (8vo, 1823). Through activity and skilful management, he now found himself in easy circumstances, while, in spite of his awkward manners and strong provincial accent, he was the welcome guest of Laffitte and other leaders of the opposition. He profited by his intercourse with many of the most eminent men of the preceding generation to gather information upon the French revolution, the history of which he had undertaken in

counection with Félix Bodin; the first two volumes appeared in 1823, and the work was completed by Thiers alone four years later in Française Depuis 1798 jusqu'au 18 Brumaire, bitterly denounced by the royalists, but highlly appreciated by eye-witnesses of the events, won great popularity with the public at large, and has passed through more than fifteen editions. On the accession of Prince Polignac to the ministry, Aug. 5, 1829, M. Thiers, dissatisfied with the moderate politics of the Constitutionnel, established, in conjunction with his friends Mignet and Armand Carrel, a new political journal, the National, which more than any other contributed toward bringing about the revolution of 1830. On the appearance of the royal decrees of July 26, the editors of the National were among the first who signed the protest of the Parisproposing and supporting the elevation of the ian journalists; and Thiers was foremost in Duke of Orleans, first to the regency, Aug 1, then to the throne, Aug. 9. Three months later he was appointed assistant secretary in the department of finance, first under Baron Louis, then under Laffitte. He had been at the same time elected by the city of Aix to the Chamber of Deputies, where he was at first laughed at as a speaker; his bombastic style of oratory, connected with his short stature and shrill voice, made him ridiculous, and it was only after altering his style and subduing his tone that his talents as an expounder of the most intricate questions were appreciated. On the fall of Laffitte, March 13, 1831, he resigned his office; but instead of following the example of his patron, who had gone over to the opposition, he sat among the supporters of Casimir Périer, and advocated the peace policy, a hereditary peership, and several other measures that were unpalatable to the people. On the insurrection of June 5 and 6, 1832, he insisted upon the necessity of dealing severely with the republicans and the legitimists. This ingratiated him with the majority of the deputies and the court; and therefore, on the death of Casimir Périer, he became minister of the interior, Oct. 11. He succeeded, by bribing the treacherous Deutz, in arresting the Duchess of Berry and suppressing the impending war in Vendée, and advised the expedition against Antwerp, which proved successful. Being transferred to the ministry of commerce and public works, he obtained a grant of 100,000,000 francs from the chamber of deputies, and gave a new impulse to internal improvements; the statue of Napoleon was placed again on the top of the column of Vendôme; the triumphal Arc de l'Étoile, the Madeleine church, and other monuments were completed or erected; canals and railroads were constructed, and under the fostering care of the administration industry revived. In 1834, on the prospect of po

ten volumes. This Histoire de la Révolution

litical troubles, he resumed the ministry of the interior, and evinced personal courage in putting down the insurrectionary movements of April 12 and 13. He resigned Nov. 11; but after a succession of unfortunate ministerial combinations, he resumed his post, with Guizot as his colleague, under the premiership of the duke de Broglie. He had a narrow escape from the murderous attempt of Fieschi, July 28, 1835, and unreservedly advocated the adoption of the so-called "laws of September," severely restricting the freedom of the press and the jury. New intrigues occurred in 1836; the whole cabinet sent in their resignation; but Thiers, who had secretly paved his own way, rose to the premiership, holding at the same time the ministry of foreign affairs, Feb. 22. Being however unable to persuade the king to adopt a more liberal policy at home and to show more energy in his transactions abroad, he retired Aug. 25, and was succeeded by M. Molé. As one of the leaders of the opposition, he adhered in 1838 to the coalition which finally overthrew that minister, and was reinstated in his former position, March 1, 1840. This was the most trying period of his ministerial career; his home policy was impeded by the undecided character of the Chamber o Deputies; he had to maintain the September laws and retard electoral reform. In his foreign policy he was entirely outwitted by the diplomatists of Russia, England, and Austria, who had agreed to settle the eastern question without consulting France. Enraged at this consummation, and convinced that war only could again raise his country to its proper standing, he was fearlessly preparing for such an emergency, reënforcing the regular army, getting the national guards in readiness, and constructing the fortifications of Paris; but at the last he could not prevail upon the king to resort to such desperate means, and therefore, after six months of useless exertions and bit ter disappointments, he resigned his powerless premiership, Oct. 29, being succeeded by M. Guizot, and thenceforth was never more recalled to the control of public affairs. He figured as one of the opposition leaders, bitterly censuring the policy of the Guizot cabinet in 1844, denouncing the growing influence of the order of Jesuits, in 1845, and insisting upon the necessity of excluding public functionaries from the Chamber of Deputies in March, 1846. His powers never shone more brilliantly than during the latter part of Louis Philippe's reign; and his vehement speeches against M, Guizot's policy were extensively

read, and eagerly commented upon, while the articles he contributed to the Constitutionnel, in the ownership of which he had now a share, spread far and wide the so-called "reformist agitation." But, like so many others, he was taken unawares by the revolution of Feb., 1848. He vainly attempted to retrieve the falling fortunes of the king; he was powerless to check the progress of the republicans; and when their triumph was an established fact, he adhered to the new government. He appeared as a candidate for the constituent assembly, and failed, in the general election, but was on June 4 returned by four departments; he sat for that of Seine-Inférieure, voted for placing dictatorial powers in the hands of Gen. Cavaignac, proved himself in his speeches and pamphlets an unmitigated opponent of socialism, was one of the leaders of the so-called "order party," and, after evincing little partiality for Louis Bonaparte, finally voted to make him president. A deputy in the legislative assembly, and a member of the Club de la rue de Poitiers, he aimed at overthrowing the republic and bringing about a monarchical restoration; but he and his friends were superseded by the superior cunning of President Bonaparte. On the morning of Dec. 2, 1851, he was arrested at his house, confined to prison for a while, and then transported to Frankfort-on-the-Main. A few months later he was allowed to return, but gave up active politics, and resumed his historical pursuits. As early as 1845 he had published the first volume of his Histoire du Consulat et de l'Empire, and had reached the ninth previous to the revolution of February. This work, which gives the fullest account of European affairs from 1800 to 1815, he now hastened, issuing one or two volumes every year; the twentieth and last volume is yet to be published. An extraordinary prize of 20,000 francs has been recently awarded to it by the French Institute. M. Thiers is a member of the French Academy and of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. Besides his two great historical works, he has published several political pamphlets and an able essay upon Law et son système de finances (8vo, Paris, 1826; new ed., 12mo, 1858). He is reported to have in preparation a "History of Florence." His biography has been written by Alexander Laya: Etudes Historiques sur la Vie Privée, Politique et Litteraire de M. A. Thiers (2 vols. 8vo, 1846). At the present time M. Thiers is a member of the French Corps Legislatif, and is an earnest, eloquent, and powerful opposer of Napoleon's policy.

THE GRAPE-GATHERERS.

POETRY.

GOLDEN-EARED corn is once more on the turn again,

Dried up and brown is the lawn at the Grange, Cracking and parched is the earth on the burn again,

Short-summered trees are now showing a change. Sultry's the sunshine so hot in the pinery,

Tropical plants are beginning to shoot, Luscious ripe clusters bloom dark in the vinery, Orchards are heavy with bright-colored fruit.

Thick hang the peaches one gathers so readilyShrunken the stream running down to the seaPlums on the wall ripen slowly and steadily,

To song of the reaper low hummeth the bee.
Nature's bedecked in her richest costumery,
Orange and russet are tinting the trees;
Heavy the air with the choicest perfumery,
Wafted on wings of the balmiest breeze.

Heat of the noontide is rising there hazily-
Culling bright flowers their hair to entwine-
Light-hearted lasses are lounging there lazily,
Plucking the purple that hangs from the vine.
Singing and laughing in fulness of pleasure there,
Roving at random and choosing by chance,
Piling up pictures of glowing rich treasure there,
Worthy the pencil of Duffield or Lance.
Ruddy-bloomed clusters are getting importunate,
Fain to be martyred along with the rest;
Weep as they gaze on and envy the fortunate
Rosebud asleep on my lady-love's breast!
Would that my change unto grapes were permissi-
ble!

Lovingly twining, I'd kiss and ne'er tell-
Pressed close to lips so delightfully kissable,
Ripe ruby lips of my sweet little Nell!
J. ASHBY STERRY.

Belgravia.

LIGHT AND SHADOW.

"If love be sweet, then bitter death must be: If love be bitter, sweet is death to me."-TENNYSON.

WHY should I not look happyThe world is all so bright?

You know, he said he lov'd me; He told me so last night: He loves me so!

Such words of love he whisper'd,
I felt my blushes rise;

But half (he said) he told not,
The rest was in his eyes:
He loves me so!

He said, to watch and guard me, Would be his tenderest care;

If I am but beside him,

Joy will be everywhere:
He loves me so!

If love will make life happy, Mine will be very bright; His love will shed a lustre, And fill it all with light: He loves me so!

Then should I not be happy

The world is all so bright? You know, he said he loved me, He told me so last night: He loves me so!

Why should I not look mournful-
The world is all so sad?
Because, you know I love him;
Such love is never glad :
I love him so!

I've listened for his footstep

All through the weary day; But oh! 'twould not be weary, If one word he would say: I love him so!

Sometimes I thought he loved me,
Then all the world was bright;
But now all hope is ended,

Quite dead since yesternight:
I love him so!

'Twas in the crowd of dancers:
I felt that he was nigh.

I longed so for his coming;-
He came and passed me by:
I love him so!

He turned to some one fairer ;
I saw him flitting past;

But me he never heeded

O God! that dream is past:
I love him so!

Then should I not look mournful? "Twill ne'er be bright again;

For still, you know, I love him,
Such love is only pain:
I love him so!

Before God's shrine she stands,
A veil thrown o'er her head;
The priest now joins their hands,
While holy words are said.
Bathed in mellowed light,

A wreath around her brow.
Clad in robes of white-

A bride, behold her now! Music is stealing round

To chant of holy hymn; Hark! how the solemn sound Steals through the arches dim.

« ZurückWeiter »