opinion and good wishes.'
After my General's
departure, and a month up the Nile, I -
already disillusioned, alas! - rode through Syria, following
the
beaten track from Jerusalem to Damascus. On my way from
Alexandria to Jaffa I had the good fortune to make the
acquaintance of an
agreeable fellow-traveller, Mr. Henry
Lopes, afterwards member for Northampton, also bound for
Palestine. We went to Constantinople and to the Crimea
together, then through Greece, and only parted at Charing
Cross.
It was easy to understand Sir Frederick Stephenson's
(supposed) unwillingness to visit Jerusalem. It was probably
far from being what it is now, or even what it was when
Pierre Loti saw it, for there was no railway from Jaffa in
our time. Still, what Loti pathetically describes as 'une
banalite de banlieue parisienne,' was even then too painfully
casting its
vulgar shadows before it. And it was rather with
the
forlorn eyes of the
sentimental Frenchman than with the
veneration of Dean Stanley, that we wandered about the ever-
sacred Aceldama of mortally wounded and dying Christianity.
One dares not, one could never, speak irreverently of
Jerusalem. One cannot think heartlessly of a disappointed
love. One cannot tear out creeds interwoven with the
tenderest fibres of one's heart. It is better to be silent.
Yet is it a place for unwept tears, for the deep
sadness and
hard
resignation borne in upon us by the
eternal loss of
something dearer once than life. All we who are weary and
heavy laden, in whom now shall we seek the rest which is not
nothingness?
My story is told, but I fain would take my leave with words
less
sorrowful. If a man has no better
legacy to bequeath
than bid his fellow-beings
despair, he had better take it
with him to his grave.
We know all this, we know!
But it is in what we do not know that our hope and our
religion lies. Thrice
blessed are we in the
certainty that
here our range is
infinite. This
infinite that makes our
brains reel, that begets the feeling that makes us 'shrink,'
is perhaps the most portentous
argument in the logic of the
sceptic. Since the days of Laplace, we have been
haunted in
some form or other with the ghost of the MECANIQUE CELESTE.
Take one or two commonplaces from the text-books of
astronomy:
Every
half-hour we are about ten thousand miles nearer to the
constellation of Lyra. 'The sun and his
system must travel
at his present rate for far more than a million years (divide
this into
half-hours) before we have crossed the abyss
between our present position and the frontiers of Lyra'
(Ball's 'Story of the Heavens').
'Sirius is about one million times as far from us as the sun.
If we take the distance of Sirius from the earth and
subdivide it into one million equal parts, each of these
parts would be long enough to span the great distance of
92,700,000 miles from the earth to the sun,' yet Sirius is
one of the NEAREST of the stars to us.
The
velocity with which light traverses space is 186,300
miles a second, at which rate it has taken the rays from
Sirius which we may see to-night, nine years to reach us.
The proper
motion of Sirius through space is about one
thousand miles a minute. Yet 'careful alignment of the eye
would hardly
detect that Sirius was moving, in . . . even
three or four centuries.'
'There may be, and probably are, stars from which Noah might
be seen stepping into the Ark, Eve listening to the
temptation of the
serpent, or that older race, eating the
oysters and leaving the shell-heaps behind them, when the
Baltic was an open sea' (Froude's 'Science of History').
Facts and figures such as these simply stupefy us. They
vaguely
convey the idea of something immeasurably great, but
nothing further. They have no more effect upon us than words
addressed to some poor 'bewildered creature, stunned and
paralysed by awe; no more than the
sentence of death to the
terror-stricken
wretch at the bar. Indeed, it is in this