Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

THE BLIND BEGGAR AND THE DOG.

117

There are also duties which we have to perform to large classes of men, or to the nation at large; and here we are as much called upon to be faithful to our trust. In electing a public servant or officer, those who exercise the right of choosing are called upon to consider nothing but the fitness of the candidate to perform his duties well. A magistrate, or any other ruler, must act solely for the public good. A judge must use every endeavour to do justice between man and man. Neither for fear nor favour should we allow ourselves to be prevented from executing these public duties faithfully.

If a friend asks us for our advice, we are equally bound to advise what we conscientiously think will be best for his interest. If he wishes to know our opinion of any one whom he intends to employ or trust, we must give our opinion truly. We must not, from good nature or fear of offending, recommend one of whom we do not think well. That would be to deceive our friend, and induce him to trust one who might deceive him still more. We should, in such a case, tell the whole truth, however painful it may be to do so.

THE BLIND BEGGAR AND THE DOG.

When a poor old blind man is obliged to live by begging, he sometimes employs a dog to lead him about. He holds the animal by a string, and trusts to its sense and fidelity for being led in the right path, and not into deep waters, or over precipices, where his life would be in danger. In the city of Rome there was once a blind beggar who was conducted by a dog. It was a dog of uncommon sagacity, and very kind, and also just in all its dealings with its master. The old man went twice a-week through certain streets, calling at particular houses, where he expected to receive alms. The dog knew all the proper streets through which his master was to be led, and also every door in those streets where it was likely that anything would be got. While the old man was knocking at the door, and asking for alms, the dog lay down to rest; but as soon as the alms had been either given or refused, the animal rose, and proceeded to

the next house where its master usually applied. When a halfpenny was thrown from a window, the beggar, being blind, could not seek for it; but the dog never failed to search it out: he always took up the coin in his mouth, and put it into the blind man's hat. Sometimes bread was thrown from windows, and here it might have been expected that the poor animal, being probably ill fed at home, would be inclined to take the morsel to himself. But however hungry he might be, he never tasted the least bit of food, unless it was given to him by his master.

Such conduct in a human being, springing from the right motives, would be highly commendable.

GENERAL WASHINGTON.

General Washington, president of the United States of America, had a friend who had fought with him in the war against Britain, and continued in peace to be his almost daily companion. This friend was a pleasant, sociable man, of unobtrusive manners, but possessed of no great qualifications for business. A lucrative office in the gift of the president chancing to fall vacant, many conceived that this gentleman would have no difficulty in obtaining it, thinking that Washington could never refuse such a favour to a man who had not only served the state well as a soldier, but was almost necessary to his own domestic happiness.

Another candidate for the office appeared. This was a political opponent of Washington, but a man of decided integrity, and great talents for business. Every one considered the application of the second person hopeless. No glittering testimonial of merit had he to present to the eye of Washington; he had done much to thwart the measures of the president, and he was opposed by one whom Washington regarded as his dearest friend. What was the result? The enemy of Washington was appointed

to the office.

A mutual friend, who interested himself in the affair, ventured to remonstrate with the president on the injustice of the appointment. The reply of that great man was as follows:" My friend I receive with a cordial welcome; he is welcome to my house and welcome to my heart; but

[blocks in formation]

Let him that stole steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.-Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, iv. 28.

Why should I deprive my neighbour
Of his goods against his will?
Hands were made for honest labour,
Not to plunder or to steal.

"Tis a foolish self-deceiving,

By such tricks to hope for gain:

All that's ever got by thieving,

Turns to sorrow, shame, and pain.

m

WATTS.

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS-RESPECTING THE

REPUTATION OF OTHERS.

THERE are many things besides actual property on which men set a value. Amongst these, a good name is one of the most important. By a good name is meant a general understanding respecting any person that he is a good man. When such is the general understanding respecting any one, he is esteemed by his fellow-creatures; they trust to him; they employ him; they speak favourably of him; in many ways he is advanced by his good name. Now, every one who is a good man, is entitled to have a good name. It is one of his rights. If he get it, his virtue has one of its rewards, and he is encouraged so far to persevere in goodness. But if it is withheld from him, or taken from him without just cause, he is' wronged; the encouragement to be really good is wanting; his virtue may fall off; and others, seeing how his goodness has been so ill rewarded, may not be at the pains to endeavour to be good.

We thus see how important it is that every one should be spoken of, or reputed, exactly according to his merits. There are two ways of injuring the reputation of others.

The one way is to assert something positively evil respecting a neighbour-to say that he has committed some actual wickedness, or to allege that he habitually omits some important duty. This is calumny. The other way is to speak slightingly of his mcrits, or surmise false motives for all the apparent good he does. This is detraction. To destroy the good name of a fellow-creature by either means, is as wicked as to take away his goods. We should be extremely cautious, therefore, in all we say of a neighbour; and the more so, because, if we do any injury to his reputation, it is almost impossible to repair it. The words once out of our mouths, can never be recalled. They are reported by one to another; are exaggerated as they go along; and at last come to imply something much worse than what was originally meant. Our neighbour thus suffers, perhaps without ever knowing why. One who wishes to be conscientious respecting the reputation of his fellow-creatures, will never speak calumniously or detractingly of any one, and never repeat any speeches of that kind which he hears.

CONSPIRACY AGAINST SOCRATES.

Socrates, the Greek philosopher, was one of the wisest and best men who ever lived. "He was," says Xenophon, "so pious, that he undertook nothing without asking counsel of the gods; so just, that he never did the smallest injury to any one, but rendered essential services to many; so temperate, that he never preferred, pleasure to virtue; and so wise, that he was able, even in the most difficult cases, without advice, to judge what was expedient and right." He spent his whole life in endeavouring to make his fellowcreatures better and happier. Yet this man was not, for all his worth, exempt from calumny.

There was a set of teachers who had great reputation and influence in Athens on account of their plausible speeches, though they had no regard for truth, and only aimed at showing off their abilities. These Sophists, as they were called, detested Socrates, for he was unsparing in his efforts to expose their errors, and save the young men from being

[blocks in formation]

misled by them. He was at the same time disliked by many other persons, on account of his zeal in denouncing certain corruptions in the state by which they profited. In short, he was too honest for his time, and for the people amongst whom he lived.

The enemics of Socrates conspired to ruin him, and calumny was the means they adopted for this end. The Athenians, like many other ancient nations, worshipped a great variety of gods; but Socrates was inclined to believe that there was but one true God, the author of all things; although, from prudence, he deemed it best to conform in some measure to the superstitions of his fellow-citizens, and to conceal his real opinions. His enemies knew well what the ignorant multitude would think of him, if once convinced that he disbelieved in or despised their gods. They therefore began to insinuate publicly that Socrates did not acknowledge the gods whom the state acknowledged, and that he corrupted the youth with his strange doctrines. His pure life and true wisdom could not save him from the effects of these calumnics. Convinced that he was an impious wretch, the people forgot all their former respect for him, and wished that he should be brought to punishment. When his character had thus been ruined, his enemics came openly forward, and accused him, before judges, of what, even had it been true, would have been no offence at all. Socrates ably defended himself; but the judges, being prejudiced against him, found him guilty, and condemned him to die by drinking poison. Thus was one of the greatest sages the world ever saw destroyed through the effects of a base calumny.

HELEN PRIME.

Helen Prime is remarkable for a disposition to detract from the merits of her friends. She praises none but those who are decidedly inferior to herself in person, accomplishments, and situation in the world. All who are generally admired, she seeks by every means to depreciate, as if from an uneasy sense of their superiority to herself.

If she hears Mr So-and-So, a person of acknowledged benevolence, praised, she says, "He is benevolent, to be

« FöregåendeFortsätt »