om the
so-called popular party propose to him as representatives of these
liberties. They have not at heart the ends which give to the name of
democracy what hope and virtue are in it. The spirit of our American
radicalism is destructive and aimless; it is not loving; it has no
ulterior and divine ends; but is destructive only out of hatred and
selfishness. On the other side, the conservative party, composed of
the most moderate, able, and cultivated part of the population, is
timid, and merely defensive of property. It indicates no right, it
aspires to no real good, it brands no crime, it proposes no generous
policy, it does not build nor write, nor cherish the arts, nor
foster religion, nor establish schools, nor encourage science, nor
emancipate the slave, nor befriend the poor, or the Indian, or the
immigrant. From neither party, when in power, has the world any
benefit to expect in science, art, or humanity, at all commensurate
with the resources of the nation."

The metaphysician who looks for a closely reasoned argument on the
famous old question which so divided the schoolmen of old will find
a very moderate satisfaction in the Essay entitled "Nominalism and
Realism." But there are many discursive remarks in it worth gathering
and considering. We have the complaint of the Cambridge "Phi Beta
Kappa Oration," reiterated, that there is no complete man, but only a
collection of fragmentary men.

As a Platonist and a poet there could not be any doubt on which side
were all his prejudices; but he takes his ground cautiously.

"In the famous dispute with the Nominalists, the Realists had a good
deal of reason. General ideas are essences. They are our gods: they
round and ennoble the most practical and sordid way of living.

"Though the uninspired man certainly finds persons a conveniency in
household matters, the divine man does not respect them: he sees
them as a rack of clouds, or a fleet of ripples which the wind
drives over the surface of the water. But this is flat rebellion.
Nature will not be Buddhist: she resents generalizing, and
insults the philosopher in every moment with a million of fresh
particulars."

_New England Reformers_.--Would any one venture to guess how Emerson
would treat this subject? With his unsparing, though amiable radicalism,
his excellent common sense, his delicate appreciation of the